Veteran D&D player finally giving 5E a go: What to expect?

[CrimsonConcerto]

A bit of background, I started playing D&D about a decade ago in high school. My high school friends and I, still my main group to this day, started off with 3.5, and when 4E and Pathfinder became things, we switched back and forth between the three of those depending on whoever was DMing and what they wanted to DM with. When 5E started out, we weren't very impressed with the playtest material at all, so we never really bothered to get into it. Not out of animosity, just no particular interest. We have, though, branched out and played other tabletop roleplaying games like Warhammer 40k and Fate.

I've played with other groups too, and an undergrad buddy of mine (that I originally introduced to tabletop gaming with 4E!) just invited me to play in a game he's running. The catch is, it's 5E, which I don't have any experience with other than the one playtest session my main group and I tried out. No worries, I can roleplay with any system, and I game more for the social aspect of having fun with friends than I do for any particular mechanical or game incentive. So, I picked myself up a 5E PHB. I'm still not particularly impressed with the mechanics (Pathfinder did class archetypes so much better, and the 5E races are especially awfully designed), but I've stomached and gotten used to worse and still had plenty of fun.

My only concern is that I know in the past whenever I've started off with any new system, it's sometimes hard to let go of preexisting assumptions from other systems. Like for example, when my main group and I first started with 4E, we just assumed two-handed weapons still added 1.5x STR mod to damage because the rules didn't make a big deal about that no longer being the case. As another example, I know a lot of other people had trouble with the Wizard's Wand of Accuracy, assuming that it needed to be chosen before seeing the die result of the initial roll and not realizing that it could be applied after, because that's how bonuses like that generally worked in 3.5.

It's kind of funny how sometimes already being familiar with another similar system can make learning a game harder than if you came into it with no previous baggage at all. So, my question is, for players who are more familiar with other editions, what are some common rule pit-falls they might experience picking up 5E? Like assumptions from former editions that no longer hold true, or changes that are subtle. What do new players, especially those who are veterans from other editions, frequently get wrong?

[Steel Mirror]

One big one is that flanking is no longer a thing. Or rather, it no longer grants a bonus (rogues can sneak attack enemies as long as an ally is adjacent to that enemy, but they still don't get advantage on the attack roll).

Ability checks, attack rolls, and saves are three different things. So if something says "this gives you advantage on Dexterity checks" or whatnot, that does not apply to attack rolls or Dex saves. It does apply to skill checks which use Dex (which are now considered Dex checks which add your prof bonus if you have the skill).

Opportunity attacks in this system are much curtailed. You pretty much just have them when an enemy moves out of your reach without taking the disengage action. There are a couple things, like the feat Mage Slayer, which replicate some of the ways that you could opportunity attacks in previous editions, but you need something special to get them and they aren't technically OA's though they work essentially the same way. But in general, most characters only get OAs for movement.

The rules are a bit lighter, and at times the GM is going to just have to make the call on corner cases or situations where you can't quite seem to find where in the rules this exact thing is spelled out. Just embrace it. Let the GM make the call to keep things going, then maybe go back later and see if you missed something in the rules. Lots of times you will realize that, no, you didn't miss anything, the rules just leave it up to the group to make the call.

Using a weapon in 2 hands does not add 1.5 times Str mod to damage. :smallbiggrin:

If I think of anything else, I'll come back and add it. On the whole 5E was actually pretty easy for me to adapt to, but I know that I had some issues with the changeover, I just have to remember them...

[MrStabby]

The two I see most often are critical hits only meaning you roll more dice rather than doubling total damage and no opportunity attacks for standing up or casting a spell next to someone.

[hymer]

The two I see most often are critical hits only meaning you roll more dice rather than doubling total damage and no opportunity attacks for standing up or casting a spell next to someone.

And you don't roll to confirm crits. Crits are just crits.

And when playing on a grid, going diagonally costs the same movement as going straight (like 4e, IIRC). You get no bonus spells per day for a high casting stat. Int doesn't affect how many skills or proficiencies you start with or gain later. Standard actions are called Actions, Swift Actions are called Bonus Actions, Immediate Actions are called Reactions (and no longer affect your Swift/Bonus Action), and the Move Action is called Movement.

[Specter]

Proficiency bonus is uniform and applies to all things you can do. You no longer need to buy skills after every level, or worry about base attack bonus; add proficiency and all other relevant modifiers.

Even if you dislike 5E, you'll find it's much more streamlined and light on reading than any other edition. I'm a 3.5 veteran, but now that I'm used to 5E, I would never go back.

[xyianth]

Another couple of big ones:

There is no such thing as negative hp in 5e. 0 is as low as you go.

Pay attention to how long the rests are. Short rest is 1 hour by default, but there exist variations that make short rest as short as 5 minutes or as long as 8 hours. Long rests are 8 hours by default. Some variations change this to anywhere from 1 hour to 7 days.

Everyone has weapon finesse and spring attack by default. You can use either strength or dexterity for thrown weapons and finesse weapons. You can move before and after attacking, and between attacks if you can make multiple attacks per round.

Magic items and feats are optional. Check with your DM if they are being used.

Cantrips are at-will and scale by character level, not class level.

Wizards specialize by default, but specializing doesn't ban schools anymore.

If you would gain proficiency in something twice, you can choose to gain proficiency in something else instead. Because of the order in which you build your character, you actually select your background after you select your class. This means that if your class and background grant you the same skill proficiency, you can replace it with ANY other skill/tool; not just those offered by your class.

Multiclassing has required attribute minimums. You must meet these requirements for BOTH the class you are and the class you want to multiclass into.

If you cast a non-cantrip spell as a bonus action, you can not cast anything other than a cantrip that turn.

There is no such thing as arcane spell failure anymore. If you are proficient in heavy armor, feel free to wear it and cast your spells.

Spell slots are spell slots, regardless of which class they came from. If you know a spell as a ranger and have spell slots from cleric levels, feel free to cast them. Truth be told, there is no distinction between arcane and divine magic anymore either.

Wild shape/polymorph grants a pool of temporary hp. Yes, this is very powerful.


I think that covers most of them. If I think of any more, I'll add them.

[hymer]

Everyone has weapon finesse and spring attack by default. You can use either strength or dexterity for thrown weapons and finesse weapons. You can move before and after attacking, and between attacks if you can make multiple attacks per round.

For clarity, a full attack takes an Action, not a Fullround Action (of which there is no equivalent in 5e). The exception to this is two-weapon fighting, where using your off-hand weapon takes your Bonus Action.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

One big one is that flanking is no longer a thing. Or rather, it no longer grants a bonus (rogues can sneak attack enemies as long as an ally is adjacent to that enemy, but they still don't get advantage on the attack roll).

It should be noted that there is a flanking optional rule that I see used fairly often (specifically, if you are flanking a creature, you get advantage on attacks against it).

[Arkhios]

One big change in regards to 3.X, Pathfinder and especially 4th edition is that Ability Scores max out at 20. On a very few corner cases a class ability or a magic item can increase or go above this limit. But by default, you can't have an ability score above 20. The bonuses are the same as before, so your highest ability modifier is going to be +5.

On the contrary, AC doesn't get much higher than 20. There are some cases when it can go higher than that, but it's relatively safe to assume, that around 20 is as high as it goes, give or take a few.
So, with this in mind, AC 15 is actually pretty good already, considering that the bonuses to attack are generally quite low.

Saving Throw DC's generally follow a same pattern. 8 + your proficiency bonus + your ability modifier, meaning that without any external bonuses (which are rare but do exist), your saving throw DC will be at most 19. Meaning that no one can handwave a save anymore. (thank god!)

Which leads to the following: A natural 1 or 20 are not always critical failures or successes. Only attacks consider it so. So, no critical failures with saving throws or skill checks, don't fret if you roll a 1, just add the bonuses you get and there might still be a chance that the targeted goal was met. Sure, it's less probable, but possible.

[MrStabby]

Everyone has weapon finesse and spring attack by default. You can use either strength or dexterity for thrown weapons and finesse weapons. You can move before and after attacking, and between attacks if you can make multiple attacks per round.


For the sake of pedantry, this isn't quite true (unless an errata changed it). For a melee weapon you don't chose strength or dex, it is the same stat as used in melee. If the weapon is a finesse weapon you can chose either as you can for a melee attack.

The net is not a melee weapon but does have the thrown property - so you use dex as it is a ranged attack.

[JobsforFun]

I've heard 5e is easier compared to earlier editions, not sure how much of it is true.

[Oramac]

I've heard 5e is easier compared to earlier editions, not sure how much of it is true.

Being a relatively new player, I can say with certainty that 5e is simpler than Pathfinder, at least.

I've only played the two editions (5e and Pathfinder), but 5e is leaps and bounds simpler than Pathfinder.

[ad_hoc]

5e is much more like 2e and earlier editions than 3e or 4e.

Do your best to remove all of your assumptions and read the rules fresh.

In my experience, most of the rules questions and confusions happen, like you said, because people assume rules from other editions. Specifically 3.x.

3.x cares a lot about simulation.

5e cares a lot about narrative.

Where 3.x asks "is this possible?" 5e asks "is this interesting?". This leads to a lot of confusion with 3.x players trying to use the 5e skill system like 3.x. In 3.x you make checks for everything and players will often say they are using such and such skill. In 5e players describe what their characters are doing and checks only happen if there is a consequence for failure (and the outcome is uncertain).

[CrimsonConcerto]

I don't care much for abstract game philosophy arguments about "verisimilitude" and what's more "narrative" and what's more "simulation" because, in my extensive experience, the people you're playing with, what they want to do and how they like to have fun, will always have a much bigger influence on how a game gets played than than its system will. Plus, like I said, I've played Fate, and I had a blast with it, so I think I can do rules-lite just fine.

Other than that though, this has all been very helpful, thank you. =)

[Demonslayer666]

I've got a set of notes that mark the differences from 3.5 that really stood out to me. I loved 3.5 and Pathfinder even more. It was a hard step for me to take, but I really enjoy 5th edition for the most part. It is streamlined, but the vagaries get to me sometimes, like the lack of Skill DCs.

Removed: BAB, 5' step, Coup-de-grace, trained only skills, subdual damage, taking 10/20, (and tons more not worth mentioning IMO)

Changed a lot: skills, feats, AOOs, saves, fatigue, resistances, grappling

New: tools, resting, concentration spells, spell slots, Inspiration, Advantage/Disadvantage, class backgrounds and archetypes, Legendary creatures


As a DM, I really miss trained only skills and subdual damage. Skill DCs below 21 don't matter, they are practically an auto success since the entire party rolls and someone gets lucky. Subduing someone with a Fireball really burns me up.

As a player, the game is fantastic, but I miss spending skill points when leveling up. Leveling is rather trivial and requires little decision. You can't learn a new skill when you level up unless you spend a feat on it (every 4 levels for most classes). Way too expensive.

[Yagyujubei]

only skimmed so I'm not sure if this has been said yet, but i didnt see it. You can break up your movement and actions however you want in 5E. It doesnt have to be move then attack or attack then move, for instance if you're a fighter with three attacks you could move use one attack, move again use another and move again for the last attack if you wanted.

also this may me a table rule my buddies play with but i feel like i heard Perkins mention it before as well in that in 5E a nat 20 or 1 don't mean and auto success or fail? Like if you roll a nat 20 against an AC 25 and your bonus is only +2 you still miss, or if you roll a crit fail for diplomacy but have +16 to the skill you could very well succeed still.

[rooneg]

also this may me a table rule my buddies play with but i feel like i heard Perkins mention it before as well in that in 5E a nat 20 or 1 don't mean and auto success or fail? Like if you roll a nat 20 against an AC 25 and your bonus is only +2 you still miss, or if you roll a crit fail for diplomacy but have +16 to the skill you could very well succeed still.

At least with regards to combat that's just wrong:


Rolling 1 or 20
Sometimes fate blesses or curses a combatant, causing the novice to hit and the veteran to miss.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. This is called a critical hit, which is explained later in this chapter.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC.

It's right about other checks though. A 20 on an ability check doesn't mean auto-success. A 1 doesn't mean auto-fail.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I sorta miss THAC0 actually lol.

5e seems fine and enjoyable to me. With a quick and agile minded DM its a great system.

[hymer]

At least with regards to combat that's just wrong

You're right about to-hit rolls. But saving throws and ability checks can be made on a 1 and failed on a 20. And they are used in combat, too.

[rooneg]

You're right about to-hit rolls. But saving throws and ability checks can be made on a 1 and failed on a 20. And they are used in combat, too.

Yes, when I said "in combat" that's what I meant. Sorry for not being more exact.

[Randomthom]

The two I see most often are critical hits only meaning you roll more dice rather than doubling total damage and no opportunity attacks for standing up or casting a spell next to someone.

But that DOES include ALL rolled dice, even sneak attacks. Rogues of the world rejoice!

[JoeJ]

You're right about to-hit rolls. But saving throws and ability checks can be made on a 1 and failed on a 20. And they are used in combat, too.

Ability checks are only rolled if the outcome is in doubt (DMG p. 237). So a natural 1 always fails and a 20 succeeds if and only if the situation calls for a die roll.

Also, the IP should be aware that taking 20 is still a thing even though that term is not used. When there's no restriction or penalty for retrying an action, you can assume success (assuming success is possible) by taking 10x as long.

[rooneg]

Ability checks are only rolled if the outcome is in doubt (DMG p. 237). So a natural 1 always fails and a 20 succeeds if and only if the situation calls for a die roll.

Where precisely are you finding this rule? The only stuff about 20 always succeeding and 1 always failing that I could find in the SRD is what I quoted above, and that's specific to attack rolls.

[JoeJ]

Where precisely are you finding this rule? The only stuff about 20 always succeeding and 1 always failing that I could find in the SRD is what I quoted above, and that's specific to attack rolls.

On page 237 of the DMG, under the heading "Using Ability Scores" it gives the conditions under which a roll is called for. If an action can't fail or can't succeed, you don't roll.

[LB628]

Where precisely are you finding this rule? The only stuff about 20 always succeeding and 1 always failing that I could find in the SRD is what I quoted above, and that's specific to attack rolls.

I think his point is more that if you can't fail on a 1, or can't succeed on a 20 then it's not worth a die roll because there is no chance of success or failure.

[rooneg]

I think his point is more that if you can't fail on a 1, or can't succeed on a 20 then it's not worth a die roll because there is no chance of success or failure.

Sure, but he said two things. First, that you only roll if you have a chance of success or a chance of failure, which I have no objection to. Second, that if you are rolling you always succeed on a 20 and always fail on a 1. I'm not clear where that bit comes from. All the stuff I see in the SRD about ability checks says nothing about a 20 always succeeding and a 1 always failing (don't have my DMG on me so I can't check the page he's pointing to).

[JoeJ]

Sure, but he said two things. First, that you only roll if you have a chance of success or a chance of failure, which I have no objection to. Second, that if you are rolling you always succeed on a 20 and always fail on a 1. I'm not clear where that bit comes from. All the stuff I see in the SRD about ability checks says nothing about a 20 always succeeding and a 1 always failing (don't have my DMG on me so I can't check the page he's pointing to).

The second necessarily follows from the first because the basic game mechanic is rolling a d20 with high numbers good. If a 20 doesn't succeed, then success was impossible and you shouldn't have rolled. Equally, if a 1 doesn't fail nothing will, and again you shouldn't have rolled.

[Bladeyeoman]

As a DM, I really miss trained only skills and subdual damage. Skill DCs below 21 don't matter, they are practically an auto success since the entire party rolls and someone gets lucky.

This is definitely an issue, but one that we as DMs can potentially handle.

For checks like stealth where the party as a whole needs to succeed, we may want everyone to roll but for the difficulty not to scale with party size. So the group check rules are good (if at least half the party succeeds, the party succeeds - the skilled or lucky individuals help those who didn't roll so well). For other checks, I'm generally trying to limit the number of players who can make the check. Either they need a narrative reason, or trained only, or whatever. And I'm allowing other party members to help, as appropriate.

Basically I don't want them to be rolling more than two dice, ideally. And I want the characters who *should* be in the spotlight to get a chance, instead of waiting to see who gets lucky.

[rooneg]

The second necessarily follows from the first because the basic game mechanic is rolling a d20 with high numbers good. If a 20 doesn't succeed, then success was impossible and you shouldn't have rolled. Equally, if a 1 doesn't fail nothing will, and again you shouldn't have rolled.

Ahh, ok. That's true, but it assumes the DM actually correctly ascertains your inability to hit the target number. If they say it's a DC 25 and you've got a +3 modifier hitting a 20 doesn't magically get you a success just because they let you roll. You got a 23 and didn't make it. The idea that a 20 always succeed assumes that the DM realized that your modifiers would make the roll redundant, which isn't always true (especially at Adventurers League tables where the DM probably isn't familiar with your exact build). Likewise on failures.

[JoeJ]

Ahh, ok. That's true, but it assumes the DM actually correctly ascertains your inability to hit the target number. If they say it's a DC 25 and you've got a +3 modifier hitting a 20 doesn't magically get you a success just because they let you roll. You got a 23 and didn't make it. The idea that a 20 always succeed assumes that the DM realized that your modifiers would make the roll redundant, which isn't always true (especially at Adventurers League tables where the DM probably isn't familiar with your exact build). Likewise on failures.

DMs are human and will make mistakes, obviously. But in the above scenario, what if you had inspiration and used it? Wouldn't you be a little annoyed to have wasted it on a roll that couldn't succeed?

[rooneg]

DMs are human and will make mistakes, obviously. But in the above scenario, what if you had inspiration and used it? Wouldn't you be a little annoyed to have wasted it on a roll that couldn't succeed?

Sure I'd be annoyed, but it still wouldn't mean I succeeded. A kind DM would give you back the inspiration if they realized the roll was pointless though.

[Corsair14]

I prefer the older editions, but 5th is a step up from 4th at least. Lacks customization of the various 3rd iterations and pathfinder. I prefer 2nd over all, its what I started with and what I know backwards and forwards. But 5th is a good game overall that allows for quite a bit of off the cuff rulings. For example, I drive my players nuts when I DM because I feel a lot of rules, relating to proficiencies especially, are wonky and since I have a long background in the SCA I tend to side with realism over silly game rules. "No, you cant make a suit of chainmail unless you have the actual skill in armorcraft. You rolled a 20? Congratulations, you made a link from 28 gauge steel wire since you didn't bother telling me what you were making it from, nor have the skill to know what to make it out of."

[JoeJ]

Sure I'd be annoyed, but it still wouldn't mean I succeeded. A kind DM would give you back the inspiration if they realized the roll was pointless though.

That's my point. Rolling 20 doesn't make the impossible possible. The reason rolling a 20 means you succeed is that any time it wouldn't, you're not supposed to be rolling the dice at all.

[rooneg]

That's my point. Rolling 20 doesn't make the impossible possible. The reason rolling a 20 means you succeed is that any time it wouldn't, you're not supposed to be rolling the dice at all.

Yes, and I'm saying that in practice the way skill checks typically work (in games I've observed) is a DM sets a difficulty (maybe in their head, maybe out loud) and the player rolls for it. The DM often does not bother to check what the player's actual bonus looks like before doing this. RAW they should stop here and say "you can't actually do this, because the difficulty is 25 and you only have a +4 bonus, so even if you hit a natural 20 you won't make it", but since they don't remember that Joe is the one with a +4 and Stacie is the one with a +8 Joe still ends up rolling, and even if Joe's player gets a 20 he still won't break down that door.

I admit, I may be biased because I mostly play AL games with a revolving cast of characters and DMs, so the DM is rarely informed enough to know if he should be calling for a roll in a particular case or not. This may be different at your table.

[2D8HP]

I've heard 5e is easier compared to earlier editions, not sure how much of it is true.
If you just use the "Starter Set", and the free online "Basic" rules, than it's easier, but if your using all RAW in the PHB I think easiest to hardest goes like this:

TSR B/X
>
5e D&D
>
Oe D&D
>
1e AD&D
>
3e D&D

Unless you've already played some version of TSR D&D, in which case 1e AD&D may be easier because it's more similar.

As I've only briefly glanced at 2e, 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e, so I just don't know how they compare, but I'm told that 3.5 and Pathfinder are very close to 3e, so I imagine that they would be complex as well.

As a player the most fun for me was Oe D&D, with 5e almost a tie in how fun it is.
As a DM/GM I think B/X or some other RPG's are just less hassle, but I think you'll get more potential players with 5e or Pathfinder.

[CrimsonConcerto]

5th is a step up from 4th at least.
Respectfully disagree, from what I've seen so far. But maybe it'll be more interesting in practice than it looks on paper. Of course, we're also starting a level 1, which is usually not great in any edition of any tabletop game, so I'll try to take that into account and not judge it too harshly.

The party is missing a support character and is also heavily skewed towards melee, so I'm going to play ranged support, probably a Cleric. I want to play a Minotaur, but like many other 5E races, it's pretty poorly designed, so I probably won't go for it unless I can fix up a homebrew version. At least this edition seems simple enough that it's easy to homebrew for. I might start up another thread about that rather than shift the focus of this one...

[GlenSmash!]

I want to play a Minotaur, but like many other 5E races, it's pretty poorly designed

There is no published Minotaur race in 5e, only one that is meant for playtesting. Are you also including other non-published races in this "poorly designed" category?

That's like comparing games that are in beta to games that are released.

[CrimsonConcerto]

There is no published Minotaur race in 5e, only one that is meant for playtesting. Are you also including other non-published races in this "poorly designed" category?
That's like comparing games that are in beta to games that are released.
As 5E has, like, zero splatbooks, I've been led to believe the online-published Unearthed Arcana material is essentially considered this edition's equivalent fair game. Is that mistaken? If so, being limited to so little material so long after the edition has come out feels kind of... sad. I mean, what options even are there beyond those from the PHB? I see something called the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, and... that's it? Everything else is just published adventures. Do they sneak the splatbook material into the adventures or something?

And, just so there's no mistaking me, I also think most of the PHB races are pretty poorly designed too, either including totally nonsensical features or just being boring, and the Unearthed Arcana Minotaur only strikes me as slightly worse.

[rooneg]

As 5E has, like, zero splatbooks, I've been led to believe the online-published Unearthed Arcana material is essentially considered this edition's equivalent fair game. Is that mistaken? If so, being limited to so little material so long after the edition has come out feels kind of... sad. I mean, what options even are there beyond those from the PHB? I see something called the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, and... that's it? Everything else is just published adventures. Do they sneak the splatbook material into the adventures or something?

And, just so there's no mistaking me, I also think most of the PHB races are pretty poorly designed too, either including totally nonsensical features or just being boring, and the Unearthed Arcana Minotaur only strikes me as slightly worse.

There's also Volo's Guide to Monsters and the Elemental Evil Player's Companion (excerpts from the Princes of the Apocalypse adventure, available online for free as a PDF). As for the Unearthed Arcana stuff, it's playtest material. Some people are totally cool with it. I wouldn't let it within ten miles of a game I was running. It's definitely not legal for any of the D&D organized play stuff. Other than that, your mileage may vary.

[CrimsonConcerto]

There's also Volo's Guide to Monsters and the Elemental Evil Player's Companion (excerpts from the Princes of the Apocalypse adventure, available online for free as a PDF). As for the Unearthed Arcana stuff, it's playtest material. Some people are totally cool with it. I wouldn't let it within ten miles of a game I was running. It's definitely not legal for any of the D&D organized play stuff. Other than that, your mileage may vary.
WTF? Uh, one of those races literally has an unlimited flight speed with nothing noteworthy to limit or counterbalance it, and I haven't see anything in Unearthed Arcana nearly that blatantly problematic. And compare that to the Air Genasi in the same book? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

I just checked and it turns out another player in the game is already playing the Minotaur, so I know it's available, but I'm still gonna ask if I can fix up an alternate version or something.

[MeeposFire]

The biggest thing outside of expectations (partly what some people expect out of something and also expecting certain things to be the same as before) is how death works.

You played 4e so death saving throws would not be new but how you die in 5e is entirely unique to 5e. Instant death only occurs if you take enough damage to equal your HP max below 0 in damage (which means as you level it is harder to actually kill you in one massive hit) but if you hit 0 then you go down. Then death saving throws occur and yu auto fail if damaged and take two failures if you get a crit on you or roll a 1 on the death saving throw. If you rol a 20 you go back to 1 HP. If you hit 3 death saves you die.

Very different from other versions of D&D though closest to 4e with modifications.