Sell 5th edition to me

[Chaosticket]

I am much more experienced in second edition Dungeons and Dragons than any other. In 3rd edition I have some, Pathfinder more than that. So Im new to fifth edition and I havent played much. I'm trying to find things to look forward to but I'm just finding walls in just about anything I liked about the other games.

[Eric Diaz]

I am much more experienced in second edition Dungeons and Dragons. Im new to fifth edition and I havent played much. I'm trying to find things to look forward to but I'm just finding walls.

What do you like about 2e? What do you dislike? What are you looking for?


Have you checked the free version?

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules



Here is my summary of some of the main 5e strenghts and weaknesses IMO (also in my sig):

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/11/d-5th-edition-bringing-balance-to-forge.html

My sig also has a couple of comparison with 3e and 4e, but I don't know if this is useful for 2e.

[Unoriginal]

Wait, didn't you say you were experienced with 3.5 and Pathfinder?

[DeadMech]

It's not my favorite for several reasons but I can understand why they made the changes they did.

The fact I didn't have to buy the books or make a campaign is enough reason for me to play with my friends. The fact that people I didn't even know were interested in DnD came to me looking for a 4th player is probably all the proof I need that there is a place for this version. I don't know about older versions of the game like 2nd but a streamlined/dumbed-down, balanced/boring version of 3.5 is fine. This group would have struggled with something more complex even if that's more my taste. And everyone gets chances to shine unless they are actively trying not to.

[Sigreid]

Without knowing what you like or dislike about other editions it's hard to say, but here's my list of reasons I like it.


Backgrounds: These mean that your character doesn't have to be entirely pigeonholed by their class. Want a fighter that has some stealth or social skills, done!
The advantage/disadvantage mechanic means less chasing after fiddly bit bonuses and penalties. Makes combat flow better.
Skills are more freeform - A plus to me, a minus to others on the board but it does mean that you don't get into the skills arms race from 3.x and pathfinder
Bounded accuracy means that no opponents become completely obsolete while maintaining the idea that higher level characters are to be feared by those around them
Less of a magical arms race: while magic items help, and can help a lot, there aren't any opponents where there isn't another way to win.
All day cantrip casting: While they don't keep up with marial weapon damage they let your caster always feel like a magic weilder instead of eventually becomming a sub-standard crossbowman


That's just my top list.

[the secret fire]

It's not my favorite for several reasons but I can understand why they made the changes they did.

The fact I didn't have to buy the books or make a campaign is enough reason for me to play with my friends. The fact that people I didn't even know were interested in DnD came to me looking for a 4th player is probably all the proof I need that there is a place for this version. I don't know about older versions of the game like 2nd but a streamlined/dumbed-down, balanced/boring version of 3.5 is fine. This group would have struggled with something more complex even if that's more my taste. And everyone gets chances to shine unless they are actively trying not to.

It actually takes a lot more thought to create a streamlined system than it does to create an unwieldy, broken mess. Compared to 3.x, there is nothing "dumbed down" about 5e. It is a much smarter game than its predecessors.

[Mikemical]

Do you like playing D&D like a videogame? If yes, you will enjoy 5th. If not, I would suggest you still try it, but probably won't feel good to you in the long run.

[Kane0]

- You don't need a table/board/battlemat/minis
- Both character building and combat are faster, both can be done in under half an hour a lot of the time
- Combat is pretty free-flowing, you can use your movement even mid-action and only one thing triggers AoOs
- You don't need to track half a dozen or more +/- modifiers that can change round-to-round, just advantage and disadvantage (roll an extra d20, take best or worst)
- Everyone can heal given a short rest (1 hour break)
- All casting is 'spontaneous', and many spells can be upcast for greater effect instead of having a half dozen that do the same thing at different levels (eg cure spells)
- Concentration helps keeps casters balanced while keeping the feeling of power they possess.
- Spellcasters can cast cantrips and ritual spells all day long, and those cantrips are relevant from level 1-20
- Multiclassing as a spellcaster doesn't hamstring you
- It's super easy to homebrew, houserule and otherwise modify

[Chaosticket]

Well im looking to have open options. I dont like fixed classes or roles. Alternatives are a focus of mine in that type of system, like multiclassing.

In character design I want to make anything I can think of and still be effective, not a joke with major drawbacks.

Daily goals would be to improve character level and gain better items. Crafting would be very nice rather than rely on drops someone else decides.

[Toadkiller]

I suppose I could, but seriously the books are on Amazon and at many local stores, why would you need mine? Tee hee.

The basic rules are out there for free. Try them, if you like them there you go. If you don’t, old versions are available on eBay, etc.

[Kane0]

You can pick up pretty much anything and be effective, you have to try pretty hard to be useless.

If whatever you're thinking of isn't in the books then making it up either has probably already been done (http://mfov.magehandpress.com/) or easy to make.

Magic items are there, but there isn't an endless grind to get newer and better ones. It can certainly be done in the right game though. Crafting is also there; it takes either a lot of time or a lot of gold but you don't need feats or anything to be able to do it.

[Chaosticket]

In regards to crafting, there are actual rules for it and where?

What is the actual cap on magic items? I think its +3.

If I cant find or craft items the the only other goal is leveling.
====
Character ideas from 2nd and 3.5/Pathfinder dont work. Its not possible to get some like 3 regular Attacks and tier 9 spells here.

[Kane0]

Crafting is in PHB p187 and Xan's p129
DMG has some items of up to +3 in power, and guidelines on how to make more in Chapter 7

[Chaosticket]

So it would take the better part of a century to make a powerful piece of equipment.

[Kane0]

Sorry I forgot DMG p128

In context, +1 is powerful. That would take you a fortnight. If you want to make an artifact then yeah that's a lifetime achievement, but still less than a year in worktime if using Xan's (the most recent rules). Not counting special ingredients of course.

Edit: Also no, you cannot be a level 17 warrior AND level 17 spellcaster at the same time (gestalt and epic levels notwithstanding). That said there are Boons and the like.

[DeadMech]

It actually takes a lot more thought to create a streamlined system than it does to create an unwieldy, broken mess. Compared to 3.x, there is nothing "dumbed down" about 5e. It is a much smarter game than its predecessors.

It's not a knock against the designers ability. Simply put there is less emphasis on keeping track of modifiers. No requirement to make flashcards to remember a half dozen stacked buff spells on a round by round basis, spells generally only scale up if they are cantrips or you use higher spell slots rather than as a matter of course. And As I said I can understand the reasoning for all these changes. It makes the game easier to pick up and play especially for new players. Depending on your outlook of 5e you might call this focus on accessibility either streamlining or dumbing down.

There is something to be said for a broken game as well. With the much greater variety of power levels a group can choose at what level they want to play. Someone else summed it up better than I could.

[JackPhoenix]

So it would take the better part of a century to make a powerful piece of equipment.

That is very much intentional: Adventurers should adventure, not sit on their asses crafting overpowered equipment before they leave house.

[Jerrykhor]

Another Grognard trying not to be left behind eh?

[MxKit]

Haven't you made basically this exact same post like... four times already? I'm not trying to be aggressive at all, I mean it sincerely: If you haven't been convinced yet by all the responses you've already gotten, I don't think anything is going to make 5e "click" for you. It just might not be your bag. Especially if you want a system that you can easily break, want to be able to make an intensely overpowered character (to the tune of having three attacks and 9th level spells, as per your example), etc. etc. 5e really does seem like it was built to prevent that kind of thing, so if that's a thing you really like, you might just not like 5e.

That said, if you want three attacks and 9th level spells inconsistently, take Bard 18/Fighter 2. Go either Valor or Swords Bard, depending on which subclass's features you like better. At Bard 6 you get a second attack, and at Fighter 2 you get to Action Surge once per short rest, giving you four attacks when you do so. If you go Valor Bard, at Bard 14 you get to attack as a bonus action if you cast a Bard spell—which is one reason you might actually consider picking up booming blade or green-flame blade via Magical Secrets, to grab a fifth attack on your Action Surge and get three attacks consistently even without it. And you'll still eventually get access to 9th level spells. ETA: Also, if you go Swords Bard and dual wield, you do get three attacks by Bard 6, can use one of your weapons as a spellcasting focus, and can do neat flourish stuff!

Also, before you totally write off 5e, I'd recommend trying to play it. That might help it click with you more than trying to get answers over a forum could ever do. Or it might not; you might decide you don't like it, and that's okay! But if you play through and get to see in context how, for example, even a magic weapon that doesn't add even +1 damage is an incredibly useful thing to have in this edition... That might be more convincing than just someone saying "no, seriously, even +1 weapons are powerful in this edition." Seeing how an actual archer plays, or how it feels to sling around spells and also fight even if you don't have the ability to do The Highest Level Stuff on both, could also convince you more than we ever could—either that it actually does play really well, or that you don't like the way it plays after all.

[ad_hoc]

I am much more experienced in second edition Dungeons and Dragons than any other. In 3rd edition I have some, Pathfinder more than that. So Im new to fifth edition and I havent played much. I'm trying to find things to look forward to but I'm just finding walls in just about anything I liked about the other games.

5e plays like 2e just streamlined. This is in opposition to 3.p which advertised that it was going to be a streamlined 2e but ended up being an entirely different thing.

[Malifice]

Character ideas from 2nd and 3.5/Pathfinder dont work. Its not possible to get some like 3 regular Attacks and tier 9 spells here.

Bladesinger 17/ Fighter 3. Dual wield.

9th level spells, 3 attacks each round. 5 attacks in a round if you action surge (1/ short rest).

[Ignimortis]

Do you want to play all those cool fantasy adventures like Lord of the Rings, Conan the Barbarian*, etc?
Do you want to not actually bother about whether you've picked something that will work and not left in the dust by the rest of the party at level 7?
Do you want that sense of excitement when you find a magic item back**?

Then the Dungeons and Dragons, 5th edition is for you!

*Actually a fighter/rogue multiclass.
**Might not apply to all campaigns. Enquire at your local DMs.

[BW022]

D&D is a game. I could no more convince you that 5e is better than 3e, 2e, or 1e, than I could that chess is more fun than checkers. Heck, I'd have know way of knowing for sure that I like jam more than peanut butter... without trying both.

You've played various previous editions. So... go play 5e and make up your own mind. Preferably, you'd play a system a few times under various cases just to be sure it is the rule system you don't like vs. the campaign setting, DM, players, inexperience, etc. Go play say three Adventure League games under 5e, and you'll likely have a good idea if you like it.

I've seen gaming systems I thought I'd love... great premise, interesting rules, good players, etc. and yet found I disliked things about it which no one mentioned. Likewise, I've had friend hate a game which I'd later played and had a blast with. And of course... there are gaming systems which aren't my favorite, but I'll play because the rest of the group likes it. There are systems I like more when I get tired of other systems. Heck, normally after ending a long D&D campaign, our group takes a few sessions and play card games, board games, or silly throw-away games. Do I like Killer Bunnies over 5e, no, but after a complex game of 5e, I'm more than happy doing something mindless for a session or two.

I'd try 5e simply so you can see if you like it, to give you the option of playing it with others (if that's what's playing), or so you can play it in casual games between your favorite system.

[Arelai]

OP keeps reposting these threads. Probably a troll. But if not, he’s just a power gamer thats upset that you can’t make anything stupid broken in 5e.

Just play by video games by yourself dude, use some cheat codes, and you can live out your power fantasies away from everyone else.

[MxKit]

Bladesinger 17/ Fighter 3. Dual wield.

9th level spells, 3 attacks each round. 5 attacks in a round if you action surge (1/ short rest).

This would definitely work, but you'd have to check with your DM to see if how they rule the "[your Bladesong] ends early if you... use two hands to make an attack with a weapon." Crawford has said it doesn't preclude dual wielding (so presumably it just ends if you use a two-handed weapon, such as a greatsword, or make a two-handed attack with a versatile weapon like a longsword); Mearls said you can't dual wield while using Bladesong, but when someone pointed out that Crawford disagreed, he said to go with Crawford's ruling instead. That means it should work, but if a DM read it as disallowing dual wielding and decides to be stubborn about it, you could run into a problem.

[Zilong]

OP keeps reposting these threads. Probably a troll. But if not, he’s just a power gamer thats upset that you can’t make anything stupid broken in 5e.

Just play by video games by yourself dude, use some cheat codes, and you can live out your power fantasies away from everyone else.

To be fair, while I agree about the power gamer thing, he could be genuinely curious about what makes 5E click with people. Until proven otherwise, let's just say this thread was made in good faith, in which case effectively telling him to go away is probably not going to be very helpful to the topic.

As for selling the edition, as others have said, the best thing to do is sit down with some friends (or strangers if Adventures League is all that's around) and just play a session or two. If it works? Great! If not? Still great, because that way you'll have a more reliable answer than anything some weirdos on the internet could give.

-Signed: an unabashed weirdo

[Errata]

I liked 3.5, and it was a big improvement over 2nd edition, which itself was a big improvement over the original versions. Each step was a nice overall improvement (minus 4e). 5e is similarly mostly better than 3.5. Not in every possible way, for every possible player, but overall a clear improvement. The rules are cleaner and in many ways better. There are a few changes that I don't agree with, but not as many things as I didn't agree with in 3.5.

If anything, one of the major problems is just that it's newer and has less supplementary material, but Xanathar's Guide is a big improvement in new character creation options. 3.5 and Pathfinder have had much longer to flesh out the system over the years. If a few more things from Unearthed Arcana make their way into official 5e sources I don't think it's an insurmountable problem at all.

I'm not going to try to sell it to you, because it looks like a more balanced, less broken game is not what you're looking for. 3.5 still exists, so enjoy it if that's your thing.

[Kane0]

For reference, heres a current thread on exactly the opposite:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?546796-Why-didn-t-we-switch-to-4e-5e&p=22733559

[Grod_The_Giant]

Do you like playing D&D like a videogame? If yes, you will enjoy 5th. If not, I would suggest you still try it, but probably won't feel good to you in the long run.
How on earth is 5e like a "videogame?"


Well im looking to have open options. I dont like fixed classes or roles. Alternatives are a focus of mine in that type of system, like multiclassing.

In character design I want to make anything I can think of and still be effective, not a joke with major drawbacks.

Daily goals would be to improve character level and gain better items. Crafting would be very nice rather than rely on drops someone else decides.
5e allows but kinda dislikes multiclassing, doesn't really have trap options but also has a fairly limited set of options in total, and doesn't have much support for crafting.

[Lombra]

5e's simplicity allows for more roleplaying honest fun and you spend much more time developing your character's behaviour than you character's statistics, so it's less videogamey IMO. There are good theorycrafting opportunitues but an optimized character isn't really that far from a regularly built one.

The goals are meant to be set by the adventure, by the DM, and by the players, so the books don't really give much "end game" objectives.

Plus, the non-simulative combat is quick and really easy to understand, there are optional rules for facing and flanking which add a bit of a strategic element, but in the end it's meant for more "casual" play. Let's say that if you liked the tinkering part of old editions and their combat depth, you'll be disappointed here.

[Beelzebubba]

Do you like playing D&D like a videogame? If yes, you will enjoy 5th. If not, I would suggest you still try it, but probably won't feel good to you in the long run.

How? It's way less grid-based than versions 3, 3.5 or 4.

Can you explain what you mean then?

[Willie the Duck]

Do you like playing D&D like a videogame? If yes, you will enjoy 5th.

How on earth is 5e like a "videogame?"

Every edition since at least 2e has been called something like 'too much like a videogame' when they came out. It's clearly usually meant as an insult. And of course it doesn't make a lick of sense since 1) there's nothing specific about edition X that makes it more like a videogame than edition Y, and 2) what exactly is wrong with something being similar to videogames? TTRPGs--the rules portions thereof--are like video games. At least in that they are outcome deriving interpretations of stated axioms combined with player/operator decision and a random number generator. So much so that one of the most iconic fantasy RPG-style videogame franchises--Final Fantasy--was explicitly a serial-numbers-filed-off homage to 1e AD&D (and possibly Expedition to Barrier Peaks, if you turn your head and squint).



So it would take the better part of a century to make a powerful piece of equipment.

By base rules, yes. And this is deliberate (the idea being that this incentivizes players going out on adventures rather than sit at home crafting). That said, if you want to bring back 3e-style crafting, it is relatively easy to implement--say, perhaps 2x speed to crafting uncommon magic items compared to what the chart says, and 10x for rare, with and additional 5x for potions/scrolls. And yes, that would be house-ruling, but if you've played during the 3e era, then you are familiar with the "use the rules you like and jettison the rest, since no one system will always fit your preferences" model D&D had up until 3e.



There is something to be said for a broken game as well. With the much greater variety of power levels a group can choose at what level they want to play. Someone else summed it up better than I could.

Well of course, there's no such thing as a one perfect game. And each game fits different people's tastes (or different tastes within people, there are plenty of us that like playing OSR, 2e, 3e, 5e, and GURPS or Traveller or who knows what). A 'broken game' can be plenty of fun so long as everyone is on board with the same level of optimization.


I liked 3.5, and it was a big improvement over 2nd edition, which itself was a big improvement over the original versions. Each step was a nice overall improvement (minus 4e). 5e is similarly mostly better than 3.5.

I really think of 3e/PF and 4e as more lateral promotions than improvements on 2nd edition. Both of them have very distinct design goals (such as 4e's focus on balance and parallel frameworks or 3e's focus on options and customization and as a low-resolution reality engine).

[Willie the Duck]

To be fair, while I agree about the power gamer thing, he could be genuinely curious about what makes 5E click with people. Until proven otherwise, let's just say this thread was made in good faith, in which case effectively telling him to go away is probably not going to be very helpful to the topic.

This is actually the thread that the OP should have started in the first place. Here there's no confusion that we are talking about the OP's preferences, and not larger abstract questions about a game being 'good' or 'bad.' OP invited a truckload of well-deserved criticism and suspicion that they were simply a troll for things like refusing to engage with points where he didn't want to confront, changing the subject when he seemed to be 'losing' a subtopic, making grandiouse statements tantamount to 'oh D&D, what happened to you,' and most importantly refusing to engage with the concept that a lot of the things he disliked about 5e were things that were deliberately put into 5e because a large portion of the gaming base actively disliked that part of 3e/PF (and of course, the fact that no one was forcing him to play). Here, where it is quite deliberately structured (and no one can dispute) to be all about his opinions and preferences, it is absolutely more reasonable for him to declare his preferences to be king. This is what should have happened all along.

[JNAProductions]

Have you played 5th edition yet? Because that's honestly the best sales pitch anyone could make. Find a good DM, play a few sessions, and then say "I like this system!" or "I don't like this system".

There's a limited amount of free content available via the SRD, and the books aren't too expensive, or maybe you could borrow some from someone you know. Point is, our words can only go so far. Playing it is the best way to see if you like it.

[Rhedyn]

Well im looking to have open options. I dont like fixed classes or roles. Alternatives are a focus of mine in that type of system, like multiclassing.

In character design I want to make anything I can think of and still be effective, not a joke with major drawbacks.

Daily goals would be to improve character level and gain better items. Crafting would be very nice rather than rely on drops someone else decides. It sounds like you want a classless system like Savage Worlds. It's an very easy system to learn but hard to master. You should drop $10 to get the deluxe core rules and then run some of the one shots in the back of the book with your group and see how they like it. If you do, you have sci-fi, fantasy, horror, and Super Powers (comic book hero) companions for $10 each to add more depth to the game depending on your setting (all the while doing it in less pages than 5e books).

Crafting is a setting specific rule and arguably a weak point of Savage Worlds, BUT magic items have prices in the fantasy companion, so SW does meet you half way if you are making crafting rules.

Then there is the wide array of first and 3rd party setting books that can add a lot to your campaign. From utility magic (beyond horror companion magic rituals) to magic item creation rules.

I like is being able to mimic most 3.5 prestige classes by level 1 in Savage Worlds.

[Unoriginal]

Or you could try out Starfinder, for a sci-fi game that is still based on 3.PF.

[Rhedyn]

Or you could try out Starfinder, for a sci-fi game that is still based on 3.PF.
If you have problems with 5e, then the 5e influences in Starfinder will bother you.

[strangebloke]

Aaaand Reported.

seriously, edition wars are against the rules, and I can't really believe that after like twenty pages across multiple threads that you've started, you're still genuinely seeking to learn about 5e.

As to why I find it fun:
It's clean, simple, functional, easy to run, and easy to introduce new players to. The power curve is much smoother and the power curve much better reflects the style of fantasy I enjoy. Even with the massive number of splatbooks in 3x, I find that there is a greater diversity of archetypes available, since there are so few trap options now.

If one of your fellow players was playing a thoroughly minmaxed wizard, there was really no way to play a non-magical knight without being severely behind in power starting at level 5 or so.

[2D8HP]

I am much more experienced in second edition Dungeons and Dragons than any other. In 3rd edition I have some, Pathfinder more than that. So I'm new to fifth edition and I havent played much. I'm trying to find things to look forward to but I'm just finding walls in just about anything I liked about the other games..
Well I have had no actually experience playing 2e/3e/4e/Pathfinder, I did have some experience playing 0e D&D and 1e AD&D, and what folks keep saying they miss about 3.x makes me cling tighter to 5e.

To me first level 5e WD&D feels to me like 3rd level 0e/1e TD&D with bits of RuneQuest and Champions.

Some things that I like about 5e more than TSR D&D are:


1) The majority of my PC's reach 2nd level.
2) Backgrounds give me more options at the start.
3) Multi-classing is easier.
4) Actual other people want to play the game.
5) Using Standard Array means I choose what PC I want to play, instead of the dice choosing, but I don't have to go through the long point buy character creation "mini-game" of GURPS and HERO.
6) In old D&D the equipment that your PC carried was often more important than the PC's "stats", and budgeting for optimal equipment was the longest part of character creation, 5e's Standard Equipment spares me that toil.



Some things I don't like about 5e are:


1) New levels with extra options/rules/powers come too quick, I like "leveling up", but not so fast!
2) "Bounded Accuracy" isn't bounded enough, I'd prefer PC's stayed closer to regular humans longer.



Somethings that scare me about 3.x' (no actual table experience)


1) I can't play a Fighter without studying up on "Feats".
2) I keep being told that they're "trap options", and how you make a "build" may dramatically alter how effective a PC is.
3) The need to plan "builds" ahead of time for "prestige classes".
4) Way too many options to master.


Basically in my area they're three main choices for easy to find tables:


1) Star Wars: Edge of Empire

2) Pathfinder

3) 5e D&D.


Of the three 5e gets me to the part when the DM/GM says "What do you do?" faster, and that's what I want.

When I feel like "optimizing" I may, but I get the impression that 5e is more about playing the PC's and that 3.x is more about planning the PC's, and you're forced to optimize, plus I just don't care much for playing superpowered PC's, and 5e already piles on the powers too fast for my taste, but the impression I get is that in 3.x some PC's get even more superpowers faster, and I'm just not looking to add even more Champions (a HERO system comic-book superhero game) into my Dungeons & Dragons.

I want Robin Hood, Sinbad, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, I don't want Dr. Strange.

FWIW, many say that 5e feels more like 2e

It's funny—mechanically it bears very little resemblance to 2e whatsoever; basically everything works and plays completely differently than 2e...but it feels like it. I started with 2e and still slightly favor it over 5e, but it's close. I don't feel like I'm playing a totally different game with some of the same names tacked on, which is how I felt about 3rd and 4th editions...yet almost all of 5e's mechanics derive from those editions, with practically nothing of TSR-era AD&D in it. But somehow it works.
Yes... provisionally.

So, 2e was my game.

I started playing D&D in or around 1993. I was a young geekling just taking their first steps into true nerddom. I walked into a comic and gaming shop called "The Bookmark" to buy some magic cards and saw some people playing a game I didn't know anything about... so I sat in.

Within a couple of weekends, I was rolling up a Mage that was horribly derivative of Raistlin for the Dragonlance campaign Toby (The DM) was running. I was easily distracted, unfocused, annoying, and constantly needed help to do literally anything from character creation to rolling the dice because the rules didn't make sense, yet.

And it was kind of fun. Mostly I think I enjoyed having so many older teens focused on me in a positive way, sharing something they enjoyed, was a precious feeling that I'll never forget. Over the next few years my brother and I got a real "Feel" for what roleplaying and Dungeons and Dragons were about.

It wasn't long before both of us were running our own games. Sometimes at home, sometimes at the Bookmark. My parents were delighted because the family was pretty poor at the time, but people were happy to loan us their books if it meant someone else was the DM, y'know? My parents would drop us off at the Bookmark on Weekends and due to the way gaming worked at the shop, we'd get a decent meal without it costing the family precious food stamps...

I traveled the Sea of Silt in a skiff. My brother walked through the doors of Sigil. We fled from Darkon with riches untold, and died at the teeth of countless fantastic beasts. The game was fantasy, and escape, and warmth of camaraderie. Surrounded by people who would die for me, even if it was only in a game of imagination.

Over time, we scrimped and saved enough to buy a few sourcebooks, the Dark Sun Boxed Set, and the core rulebooks. But Norman grew out of tabletop gaming and, without my knowledge, sold all of the books for some cash so he could buy tickets to a Metallica Concert. I was devastated.

Still. I borrowed books. I wrote until my wrist hurt. I memorized charts and tables of attacks and experience and I continued to run games to the best of my ability, and play in them.

Third Edition came out while I was in Job Corps. I had been unable to get to a tabletop game for over a year, and satisfied myself with reading GURPS books and the like or trying to play in some ridiculous games that had as much focus as a camera with no lens dipped in bacon grease. These weren't even beer and pretzels games, folks, they were hollow attempts at self-aggrandizement by the GM while everyone else tried and failed to do anything interesting.

My boyfriend and I bought the core books for 3e somewhere around 2001. I started running games pretty much immediately and pretty much nonstop. I used old campaign notes and adapted monsters to the new stats and systems, but it all felt... wrong. The stories didn't feel supported by the rules, being things of deadly seriousness while the rules were too lenient with the players, giving them endless solutions and choice paralysis.

The feeling of real RISK was gone. My players? Loved it. So I ran.

3.5 came along and, for a brief time, it was a bit better. With the changes they made, there, helped to limit some of the shenanigans, but soon the massive glut of rulesets bogged everything down, again. Endless new classes and prestige classes and feat trees created mires that left my stories by the wayside... Most of my old campaign notes and adventures were lost around that time. I just gave up on ever hoping to have that feeling, again.

4e was a mess. I had minimal interest in it. But Pathfinder was a new and interesting take on 3e's systems while killing off the 3.5 glut. New class design and features shifting things around and made the overwhelming quantity of tables and rules-infringements disappear... at least until they made it all 3.5 compatible.

At that point, I more or less left tabletop gaming behind for the second time in my life, and threw myself into MMORPGs and Internet Chat RP to scratch that escapist itch. It's where I eventually met my husband (A different story, altogether!) and the best friend we both have. This best friend? He does tabletop gaming online. And brought us into it, full force. Mutants and Masterminds, Pathfinder, 4th Edition D&D, some small measure of Savage Worlds... None of it felt -exactly- like home, but it was warm, and friendly, and I loved it.

5th edition came down the pipeline. By this point in my life, I was a systems design nerd. I love breaking down the mechanics of how a game determines successes or damage, balances different characters, and more. So 5th edition initially drew me in on -that- basis.

But as I played, I started feeling that old feeling, again. Just glimmers of it, here or there. The feeling I had, sitting at a table of friends, looking up from character sheets to dice and shouting with delight at the result. OF being truly -excited- by the game, by the friends, by the outcomes. Feeling nervous when I rolled a die. Feeling like there was a real weight in my hand...

It still wasn't perfect. Not until I started running Tyranny of Dragons. I know. I know. It's so simplistic and railroady and site-to-site... But my players don't always hold to the rails. Don't always follow the plan. They're players like that. And during one of the first encounters in that game, the whole table, scattered across the US as we are, felt the excitement, the weight of the dice. The feelings I'd not truly felt in almost two decades crystallized in that moment, into perfect clarity.

And suddenly I was a kid, sitting at the table with my friends, watching a die bounce in slow motion, feeling the trepidation and hope for how it would land, the fifth death save of my husband's character, bouncing across the digital playspace as a computer generated image of a polyhedral dice...

And the feeling stayed. It hasn't faded, yet.

When I look at 5e D&D I feel that joy, again, that unbridled exuberance. Like a sleeping dragon finally taking to the skies, anew, after a decades long slumber. And the glory of the world is blinding and bold. Worlds. From Athas to Faerun to Golarion and Krynn. Across Oerth and the Planes I'm ready, again, to step forth onto a skiff to cut across the sea of silt. To step into the dungeon-tomb of Acererak. To plunder Undermountain and to stand Against the Giants.

5th edition isn't for everyone. 5th edition won't rekindle everyone's childhood feeling of what D&D truly -was-. It's not a perfect system, by a long shot. And it's definitely not 2nd edition. But it's closer, in my opinion, than anything has ever been. And it did it while moving forward, while learning from 2e's mistakes and making new ones that it'll learn from as it goes on.

I highly recommend it.

[Chaosticket]

Aaaand Reported.

seriously, edition wars are against the rules, and I can't really believe that after like twenty pages across multiple threads that you've started, you're still genuinely seeking to learn about 5e.
.

Im not the one bringing up different games and editions to compare. I object to your report.

Im asking about what people like.

[GlenSmash!]

Well im looking to have open options. I dont like fixed classes or roles. Alternatives are a focus of mine in that type of system, like multiclassing.

D&D is a class based game, but roles are more fluid than 4e. You may want to try GURPS though.


In character design I want to make anything I can think of and still be effective, not a joke with major drawbacks.

Then 5e might be for you! It is easy to make an effective character, and hard to make a Joke with Major Drawbacks. It would take true system mastery to make a character that bad.


Daily goals would be to improve character level and gain better items. Crafting would be very nice rather than rely on drops someone else decides.

Forge Cleric is currently the easiest way to make Magic Items. It might be what you are looking for.

[GlenSmash!]

Some more General questions:

Who do you play with? Friends at a table? Strangers at game store or other public location? Strangers on a VTT like Role20 or Fantasy Grounds? Something else I'm not thinking of?

[2D8HP]

Well im looking to have open options. I dont like fixed classes or roles....
:confused:

if you don't want fixed classes why are you looking at Dungeons & Dragons at all?

Classless systems have been around at least since 1978 with RuneQuest.

Judging by posts at other threads, what you want is games more like GURPS or HERO.

Since you have 3e experience, I think Mutants & Masterminds may be what your looking for (I've never played it).


..Its not possible to get some like 3 regular Attacks and tier 9 spells here..
Both?

A top level Fighter gets three attacks in a turn, and "tier 9 spells"?

I'm guessing you mean level 9 spells?

No, 5e D&D caps total levels at 20 (thank goodness!).

Seems that you crave "power builds", so sorry I can't advise you on that because that's what I don't want.

Go get "Swords Against Death" by Fritz Leiber, oh here:
Induction (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0087/ERBAEN0087___1.htm)

The Jewels in the Forest (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___2.htm)

The Bleak Shore (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781625791528/9781625791528___2.htm)

Lean Times in Lankhmar (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___2.htm)

In the Witch's Tent (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0090/ERBAEN0090___1.htm)

The Circle Curse (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___1.htm)

The Sadness of the Executioner (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0092/ERBAEN0092___1.htm)

Beauty and the Beasts (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0092/ERBAEN0092___2.htm)

Sea Magic (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0093/ERBAEN0093___1.htm)

The Cloud of Hate (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___1.htm).
Do those stories make you crave playing out similar adventures?

If yes, try 5e.

If no, maybe not.

[Sigreid]

.
:confused:

if you don't want fixed classes why are you looking at Dungeons & Dragons at all?

Classless systems have been around at least since 1978 with RuneQuest.

Judging by posts at other threads, what you want is games more like GURPS or HERO.

Since you have 3e experience, I think Mutants & Masterminds may be what your looking for (I've never played it).

.
Both?

A top level Fighter gets three attacks in a turn, and "tier 9 spells"?

I'm guessing you mean level 9 spells?

No, 5e D&D caps total levels at 20 (thank goodness!).

Seems that you crave "power builds", so sorry I can't advise you on that because that's what I don't want.

Go get "Swords Against Death" by Fritz Leiber, oh here:
Induction (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0087/ERBAEN0087___1.htm)

The Jewels in the Forest (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___2.htm)

The Bleak Shore (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781625791528/9781625791528___2.htm)

Lean Times in Lankhmar (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___2.htm)

In the Witch's Tent (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0090/ERBAEN0090___1.htm)

The Circle Curse (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___1.htm)

The Sadness of the Executioner (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0092/ERBAEN0092___1.htm)

Beauty and the Beasts (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0092/ERBAEN0092___2.htm)

Sea Magic (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0093/ERBAEN0093___1.htm)

The Cloud of Hate (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___1.htm).
Do those stories make you crave playing out similar adventures?

If yes, try 5e.

If no, maybe not.

Runequest was a great game.

[Chaosticket]

Some more General questions:

Who do you play with? Friends at a table? Strangers at game store or other public location? Strangers on a VTT like Role20 or Fantasy Grounds? Something else I'm not thinking of?

Best question Ive seen in a long time.

Im trying to play with a friend using Tabletop Simulator on Steam. I dont know how these people play as theyve been playing Warframe for weeks. Also so all the work I do with them isnt wasted if whatever happens and I dont play with them I also need to be prepared for basically any random people at tables, RollD20, Fantasygrounds, etc.

[Joe dirt]

Basically 5 ed is a streamlined version of 3rd edition... if u hated 3rd edition because it bogs u down they simplified those rules

[2D8HP]

Runequest was a great game..
Yes it


was (https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-classic-pdfs/),


and yes it


is (https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-glorantha/).



You can get a free Quick start PDF of the latest version here (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjJlK6I7c3YAhUH-GMKHfJpBWwQFjABegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.chaosium.com%2Fcontent%2FFre ePDFs%2FRuneQuest%2FCHA4027%2520-%2520RuneQuest%2520Quickstart.pdf&usg=AOvVaw394JmSA-DRPUO8csLhBeDD)

[GlenSmash!]

Best question Ive seen in a long time.

Im trying to play with a friend using Tabletop Simulator on Steam. I dont know how these people play as theyve been playing Warframe for weeks. Also so all the work I do with them isnt wasted if whatever happens and I dont play with them I also need to be prepared for basically any random people at tables, RollD20, Fantasygrounds, etc.

Thanks for the reply. This is good information.

One of 5E's strengths is that it is easy for new players to grasp. Also free. you can literally make some good, if simple, characters from the basic rules and try it out.

A fighter, a Wizard, a Rogue, and a Cleric, the basic party takes no time to whip up and honestly can be a hoot to play. After a short campaign you can easily decide whether or not you want to put real money into it.

Another of 5E's strengths is its popularity. Particularly in the streaming/Podcast sphere. You have so many options to learn or be inspired by things like Critical Role, Force Grey, Acquisitions Inc, etc, etc. There's just a lot of buzz around 5e right now. More even than when it debuted, which is kind of crazy to me. If you're really considering a "pickup game" that might be 5E's biggest draw.

[2D8HP]

I'm trying to play with a friend using Tabletop Simulator on Steam. I dont know how these people play as theyve been playing Warframe for weeks. Also so all the work I do with them isnt wasted if whatever happens and I dont play with them I also need to be prepared for basically any random people at tables, RollD20, Fantasygrounds, etc..

If you want to find a tabe for

5e click here (http://dndadventurersleague.org/find-a-game/)

If you want to find a table for

Pathfinder/Starfinder click here (http://paizo.com/paizo/organizedplay/events)

[Contrast]

.Basically in my area they're three main choices for easy to find tables:


1) Star Wars: Edge of Empire

2) Pathfinder

3) 5e D&D.


Of the three 5e gets me to the part when the DM/GM says "What do you do?" faster, and that's what I want.

I'm surprised I would have thought the FFG Star Wars games would have been more up your street in that they provide the most clean 'roll the dice and DM tells you what happens' sort of gameplay I've seen you previously mention liking. That said you do need a DM who is good at improvising and unless you're doing some serious refluffing its obviously going to be sci-fi not fantasy :smallbiggrin:

On topic - when I started playing RPGs 3.5 seemed like a complicated mess so I steered clear and played other games. When 4E came along I bought all the books but couldn't find anyone else to play with. When 5E came along I bought all the books and could find other people to play with. So I'd say its good points are it provides the fantasy D&D gameplay without as much rules clunk and with an actual player base.

Based on what you've said I probably wouldn't recommend 5E as your 'optimal' game but then again based on what you've said I wouldn't have recommended 3.5 as your optimal game either and from what you've said you enjoyed that so...give it a go?

[ad_hoc]

Basically 5 ed is a streamlined version of 3rd edition... if u hated 3rd edition because it bogs u down they simplified those rules

Except for using many of the same terms having similar D&Disms, 5e is very unlike 3e. The goals and structures of the games are wildly different. They also play very differently.

In the sense that they are both fantasy RPGs, then sure.

[Chaosticket]

So there is no way to get the following?:

1 a full compliment(weapons, armor, a belt, boots, necklace, 2 rings, head item, etc) of magic items used simultaneously.

2 Statistics to the maximum without sacrificing Feats

3 Almost highest physical and magic abilities on individual characters, namely 3-4 natural attacks and tier/level 9 spells.

#4 items, feats, or other abilities, besides leveling in particular classes, to increase the uses of spells per day, Action Surge charges, Rages, etc.
====
From what I know
#1 is prevented by Attunement rules. #2 would require large amounts of Tomes and Manuals for permanent increases. #3 is prevented by exclusive rules in regards to individual class and multiclassing. #4 ive ive found no ways to get past the strict limits.

[Unoriginal]

a full compliment(weapons, armor, a belt, boots, necklace, 2 rings, head item, etc) of magic items.

It's possible. Not likely, but possible.

Depends on how high on the rarity scale you want them to be, too.

Also note there is no limitation per slots in 5e. If you find 10 rings, you can wear them without issue. As long as only 3 items require attunement.


Statistics to the maximum without sacrificing Feats

Depends how many statistics and which feats. Also what kind of stats you start with.

Then of course there are creatures that can affect your stats permanently.



Almost highest physical and magic abilities on individual characters.

Not sure what you mean.



From what I know
#1 is prevented by Attunement rules.

Not all items require attunement


#2 would require large amounts of Tomes and Manuals for permanent increases.

Well, if you want to do it yourself, sure.

But there are other beings than PCs in the universe.


#3 is prevented by exclusive rules in regards to individual class and multiclassing.

Depends what you mean by "prevented".



#4 ive ive found no ways to get past the strict limits.

Well, not quite true. There are ways to get some more spells per day (as in, specific spells you can cast a few times) or additional class-like abilities.

[JNAProductions]

So there is no way to get the following?:

1 a full compliment(weapons, armor, a belt, boots, necklace, 2 rings, head item, etc) of magic items used simultaneously.

2 Statistics to the maximum without sacrificing Feats

3 Almost highest physical and magic abilities on individual characters, namely 3-4 natural attacks and tier/level 9 spells.

#4 items, feats, or other abilities, besides leveling, to increase the uses of spells per day, Action Surge charges, Rages, etc.
====
From what I know
#1 is prevented by Attunement rules. #2 would require large amounts of Tomes and Manuals for permanent increases. #3 is prevented by exclusive rules in regards to individual class and multiclassing. #4 ive ive found no ways to get past the strict limits.

Why is that necessary to you? Why is that required for a fun game?

Again, actually try 5E. That's the best you can do to see if you like it.

[Rhedyn]

So there is no way to get the following?:

1 a full compliment(weapons, armor, a belt, boots, necklace, 2 rings, head item, etc) of magic items.

2 Statistics to the maximum without sacrificing Feats

3 Almost highest physical and magic abilities on individual characters.
====
From what I know
#1 is prevented by Attunement rules. #2 would require large amounts of Tomes and Manuals for permanent increases. #3 is prevented by exclusive rules in regards to individual class and multiclassing.
For Savage Worlds

1. Depends on setting and crafting rules/drops but there is no item slot limit and magic items are very cool.

2. Same for Savage Worlds. Your advancement can be spent on edges (feats) or raw stats/skills. But advancements can go forever without really breaking the game.

3. Oh yeah you can do this, you just have to give things up compared to someone focusing on it. Less breadth of abilities in both sides but you could still be the best swordsman/caster of the world. I would say it's less optimal than being just good at both and adding some breadth back.

This also depends on #1. If you can buy/create handcrafted magic items money becomes power as you can equip yourself with abilities normally gained through level up. A novice character with the best most legendary gear can solo dragons that a legendary character would struggle to kill with muggle weapons.

4. Cool items probably address number 4 for you. That or just building yourself to do more.

[Ignimortis]

So there is no way to get the following?:

1 a full compliment(weapons, armor, a belt, boots, necklace, 2 rings, head item, etc) of magic items used simultaneously.

2 Statistics to the maximum without sacrificing Feats

3 Almost highest physical and magic abilities on individual characters, namely 3-4 natural attacks and tier/level 9 spells.

#4 items, feats, or other abilities, besides leveling in particular classes, to increase the uses of spells per day, Action Surge charges, Rages, etc.
====
From what I know
#1 is prevented by Attunement rules. #2 would require large amounts of Tomes and Manuals for permanent increases. #3 is prevented by exclusive rules in regards to individual class and multiclassing. #4 ive ive found no ways to get past the strict limits.

1) Won't fly. You get 3 attuned items and maybe a lucky non-attunement item. That's it.
2) You don't even get feats unless you choose to trade stats for them and your DM allows it.
3) Bladesinger gets best possible casting but mediocre physical options. Same with War Cleric. Moon Druid is, at any given moment, is either a pretty ok melee beatstick, or a full caster. That's about it. Hexblade's casting is subpar, but their melee potential is pretty good, even though way worse than Fighter's.

[GlenSmash!]

So there is no way to get the following?:

1 a full compliment(weapons, armor, a belt, boots, necklace, 2 rings, head item, etc) of magic items used simultaneously.

There is actually a number of useful Magic Items that don't require Attunement.

Also, this is rather DM dependent, but I feel like actual human beings, don't have inventory "slots", In my game if you have three magic belts and can fit them all around your waist at the same time like a girdle, I say go for it.

However I also think having a few Magic Items that are really cool and unique is way more fun that having a "loot train" of replaceable magic items. If I want the latter I can play any number of video games. I play D&D to emulate more of the Conan & LotR style where a single Magic sword is a big freakin' deal.


2 Statistics to the maximum without sacrificing Feats

I personally am OK with this, but I know others who actively dislike it. Adventures in Middle Earth has an option for using Downtime to get Feats, and thus free up all your ASI for Attributes. I'm going to give it a try.


3 Almost highest physical and magic abilities on individual characters, namely 3-4 natural attacks and tier/level 9 spells.

Correct. The idea is you can't do everything by yourself, that's why you need an adventuring party. This is a core assumption of the game IMHO.


#4 items, feats, or other abilities, besides leveling, to increase the uses of spells per day, Action Surge charges, Rages, etc.

Nothing yet that I know of, but there might be some stuff on the DMsGuild for this.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sell 5th edition to me

It brought me back to the game. I started in 1975 before AD&D came out, played quite a bit for the first 10 years of its reign, but less in 2e. With 3.x, it wasn't long before I took the 3.x books to the second hand store and sold them. Didn't bother with 4e.

5e is a nice mix of D&D features, some old and some new. A lot of bloat was gone, though it's creeping back into the game. (Sadly)

I want to play and enjoy an adventure that exercises my imagination. The video game habit of collecting a whole pile of imaginary gear is OK for a video game, but no it longer interests me. Finding the occasional magic item is nice, and then we as a group try to figure out who needs it to help the team effort. If I want that, I can spend a little while playing Diablo III. (Being able to play the Naked Mage (no items) to a 3@30 was a neat challenge in Diablo I).

The play's the thing. I don't play the game solo, I play as part of a team. That appeals to me, and that's why I like 5e. We each have a complimentary role to play.

[Eric Diaz]

Well im looking to have open options. I dont like fixed classes or roles. Alternatives are a focus of mine in that type of system, like multiclassing.

Lots of option, yeah, 5e has got it. No fixed roles, more or less - they are somewhat flexible but not that much. No fixed classes... Nope, there are classes, you'd better playing something else besides D&D (I have released a BX retroclone where the classes are really not fixed and PCs are built through feats if you're interested... :smallbiggrin:)


In character design I want to make anything I can think of and still be effective, not a joke with major drawbacks.

5e is a good edition for you I think. Everything is more or less "effective", you can pretty much always find an effective build.


Daily goals would be to improve character level and gain better items. Crafting would be very nice rather than rely on drops someone else decides.

"improve character level and gain better items", yes. Crafting, I don't care much for that, but many people dislike 5e's crafting rules.

[Eric Diaz]

So there is no way to get the following?:

1 a full compliment(weapons, armor, a belt, boots, necklace, 2 rings, head item, etc) of magic items used simultaneously.

2 Statistics to the maximum without sacrificing Feats

3 Almost highest physical and magic abilities on individual characters, namely 3-4 natural attacks and tier/level 9 spells.

#4 items, feats, or other abilities, besides leveling in particular classes, to increase the uses of spells per day, Action Surge charges, Rages, etc.
====
From what I know
#1 is prevented by Attunement rules. #2 would require large amounts of Tomes and Manuals for permanent increases. #3 is prevented by exclusive rules in regards to individual class and multiclassing. #4 ive ive found no ways to get past the strict limits.

#1 Attunement isn't required for all tiems.

#2 Can be done through magic items or rolling your stas in some alternate way (or, you know, just GIVE you PCs increses each tier if you want).

#3 can be done, although if your goal is to simultaneously become the best fighter and the best wizard I am not sure any game will do that.

#4 Not that I know of.

---

But from the overall content of this post it seems to me that maybe 5e is not ideal for you. It is not as "epic" as 3e, for example. You are not defeating 200 goblins at level 15th like you might do in 3e (IIRC).

[strangebloke]

But from the overall content of this post it seems to me that maybe 5e is not ideal for you. It is not as "epic" as 3e, for example. You are not defeating 200 goblins at level 15th like you might do in 3e (IIRC).

People have been telling him this for many pages on multiple threads. It's a dead horse to beat. 5e is not a good edition if your goal is omnipotence.

[Joe dirt]

Except for using many of the same terms having similar D&Disms, 5e is very unlike 3e. The goals and structures of the games are wildly different. They also play very differently.

In the sense that they are both fantasy RPGs, then sure.

I disagree friend, there are many parallel rules to 3rd ed base game or even pathfinder. skills, feats, spells, its just that they have done their best to streamline those rules making most things optional if it bogs things down... for example multicasting rules

[Rhedyn]

I disagree friend, there are many parallel rules to 3rd ed base game or even pathfinder. skills, feats, spells, its just that they have done their best to streamline those rules making most things optional if it bogs things down... for example multicasting rules
Streamlined is too strong a word. 5e cuts things away and gets something that "works", but not without loss.

[Chaosticket]

#1 Attunement isn't required for all tiems.

#2 Can be done through magic items or rolling your stas in some alternate way (or, you know, just GIVE you PCs increses each tier if you want).

#3 can be done, although if your goal is to simultaneously become the best fighter and the best wizard I am not sure any game will do that.

#4 Not that I know of.

---

But from the overall content of this post it seems to me that maybe 5e is not ideal for you. It is not as "epic" as 3e, for example. You are not defeating 200 goblins at level 15th like you might do in 3e (IIRC).

Well thank you.
It means my goals in roleplaying games are unattainable in 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons.

I'll keep looking for people playing other games.

[GlenSmash!]

Well thank you.
It means my goals in roleplaying games are unattainable in 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons.

I'm glad we could help you figure this out.


I'll keep looking for people playing other games.

I wish you luck in your endeavors.

[Chaosticket]

For reference, heres a current thread on exactly the opposite:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?546796-Why-didn-t-we-switch-to-4e-5e&p=22733559

Thanks for the link.

[MxKit]

1 a full compliment(weapons, armor, a belt, boots, necklace, 2 rings, head item, etc) of magic items used simultaneously.

This you can do, but it's far from guaranteed. If you try to find a DM who's running a high magic game with a lot of loot, it's possible! Not every magic item requires attunement; you could easily have, for example, a +3 weapon, +3 armor, +3 shield, belt of giant strength, boots of elvenkind, necklace of fireballs, ring of water walking, ring of protection, and helm of brilliance all equipped, since only the belt, the helm, and the ring of protection require attunement. What you can't do easily is make sure your character actually gets access to all these things by the end of the game.


2 Statistics to the maximum without sacrificing Feats

Depends on what you mean by "statistics to the maximum." If you mean all statistics, no, not without a house rule that lets you get both an ASI and a feat at each ASI level, and even then many classes don't have enough ASI's to max out everything. If you mean in your core ability scores, the ones you most need as a class and a few other nice ones to have, then it depends. Some classes are less MAD than others, and some classes are less feat-hungry than others and not taking feats will not actually hurt you any.

Playing a Fighter is a great example of the first, only really needing Strength OR Dexterity and Constitution, with Wisdom for Perception checks being a nice bonus, and having a ton of ASI's. You can max out, for example, Dex and Con and still be able to play with feats.

Playing a Monk is a great example of the second, because you can max out Dex and Wis fairly easily, don't actually need that high a Con score since you're looking to be more maneuverable than tanky, and don't actually need more than one feat at most. Mobile is an admittedly great feat for many Monk builds, but you don't actually need it, and if you go Drunken Master subclass you need it even less.


3 Almost highest physical and magic abilities on individual characters, namely 3-4 natural attacks and tier/level 9 spells.

A few people have already made suggestions for this in this very thread; again, if you go dual-wielding Valor or Swords Bard or dual-wielding Bladesinger Wizard, two-level dip into Fighter optional, you get three attacks per round turn by level 6* and will indeed still get access to your lv9 spells.

*It's good to make the distinction between "round" and "turn," because if an enemy triggers an attack of opportunity, you could very well get four attacks in one round with these builds.


#4 items, feats, or other abilities, besides leveling in particular classes, to increase the uses of spells per day, Action Surge charges, Rages, etc.

There are certain things you can use to increase "certain number per day," but only on some of those options. Action Surge is hard capped, as are Rages, as is Wild Shape. You can take Martial Adept to gain another superiority die as a Battle Master. The Magic Initiate, Ritual Caster, and even Spell Sniper feats give you 1-3 extra spells each, and you can take all of them if you have the ASI's to spend on them. Certain items let you cast spells via them. Warlock invocations give you extra spells you can cast, quite a few of them at will even when you wouldn't normally be able to cast said spell at will (mage armor, levitate, alter self, just as examples). Hell, just ritual casting in general lets you cast more often. For balance reasons, though, a lot of class features really are only meant to increase as you level.


Well thank you.
It means my goals in roleplaying games are unattainable in 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons.

I'll keep looking for people playing other games.

You may well be right! Still, at some point you might want to reconsider and revisit the system, to see if you can enjoy it without being able to do the exact things you expect to be able to do with other systems. You want to be able to be amazing at many different things (ALL of the things?!), and sincerely good luck at finding a system and group that lets you do that, but there's something to be said about being a specialist, too, who is incredibly good at one or two things and still completely competent at most other things. You might actually find it fun if you tried it...

Or you might not, and you do know yourself better than we do. :smallsmile: Either way, hope you enjoy whatever systems you end up playing, whether one of them is 5e or not.

[Sigreid]

In the Stormbringer or Runequest games you can eventually be good at all of the things. If that is what you want and you work to it.

[Chaosticket]

Its not about about that.

In the 3.5 forum I have a thread about Gish builds. There I had a discussion about making characters with high physical and magical ability. One of which is basically a better Bard with 4 attacks and level 9 spells that I planned to use with the Leadership Feat Ive never used before.

Or use Arcane Hierophant to be 85percent druid and 65percent wizard, or Dragon Disciple.

Ive made fighters and worked with limited magic, so im looking for more options and less limits.

[Kane0]

In the 3.5 forum I have a thread about Gish builds. There I had a discussion about making characters with high physical and magical ability. One of which is basically a better Bard with 4 attacks and level 9 spells that I planned to use with the Leadership Feat Ive never used before.


And that's the problem. You have created a character that displaces others, or worse renders them irrelevant. That is a failure of game design.
It's fun for you but a bad thing for the game.

5e deliberately attempts to avoid this. When you said you want to make anything and it won't be useless, that's what the design was.

Give 5e a try as it is, without comparing it to what 3.5 or PF or 4e or AD&D is. Then decide if you like it. And it's okay not to.

[Sigreid]

Its not about about that.

In the 3.5 forum I have a thread about Gish builds. There I had a discussion about making characters with high physical and magical ability. One of which is basically a better Bard with 4 attacks and level 9 spells that I planned to use with the Leadership Feat Ive never used before.

Or use Arcane Hierophant to be 85percent druid and 65percent wizard, or Dragon Disciple.

Ive made fighters and worked with limited magic, so im looking for more options and less limits.

I may have miscommunication. Both of the games I mentioned are not class based. You start with a character that has some skills based on his background. From there, your skills and ability development depends on trainers you find and what you actually use.

[Chaosticket]

Id like to see more Videogame elements.

Raise the level cap. Put in mana points and costs for special ability use. Improve systems for easier grinding of experience, money, and item drops.

Or less videogame.

No character or class levels. Your abilities are only limited by the stamina to perform them and they improve as you get better at using them. If you do kill anything it better be for self defense, survival, and/you thought of some way to murder, loot, get away with it and sell your loot.

[LeMooseImperium]

I only came from 5e to 3.5 a month or two ago. The only reason I wouldn't switch back is that spontaneous casters are worse in 5e, but still not by much.

[Jerrykhor]

Id like to see more Videogame elements.

Raise the level cap. Put in mana points and costs for special ability use. Improve systems for easier grinding of experience, money, and item drops.

Or less.

No character or class levels. Your abilities are only limited by the stamina to perform them and they improve as you get better at using them. If you do kill anything it better be for self defense, survival, and/you thought of some way to murder, loot, get away with it and sell your loot.

Then just go play Skyrim.

[CantigThimble]

Id like to see more Videogame elements.

Raise the level cap. Put in mana points and costs for special ability use. Improve systems for easier grinding of experience, money, and item drops.

Or less.

No character or class levels. Your abilities are only limited by the stamina to perform them and they improve as you get better at using them. If you do kill anything it better be for self defense, survival, and/you thought of some way to murder, loot, get away with it and sell your loot.

The reason those are video game elements and NOT tabletop game elements is because they're not at all fun to DM. If you want a video game then play a video game.

[Kane0]

Mate, you taking the piss? Because we are trying to help out here.

[2D8HP]

Id like to see more Videogame elements.

Raise the level cap. Put in mana points and costs for special ability use. Improve systems for easier grinding of experience, money, and item drops.

Or less.

No character or class levels. Your abilities are only limited by the stamina to perform them and they improve as you get better at using them.....
My video game experience is stuff lIke "Asteroids", "Centipede", and "Missile Command" from the 1980's, so I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but if I do, I think that your describing most Fantasy Role-playing games.

There were already hundreds of pencil and paper table top RPG's in the 1980's, and I'd be suprised if they weren't thousands today

From your latest wishlist (you keep changing the goalposts) off the top of my head:


Ars Magica,,

Fantasy Hero,

GURPS,

RuneQuest,

Stormbringer, and

Vampire


(the early 1990's version).

meet some or all of what you list.

Here's yet another quickstart rules PDF, for a game called

Magic World (https://www.chaosium.com/content/FreePDFs/Magic%20World/Magic%20World%20Quickstart.pdf)

Perhap you should ask for more at the
Older D&D/AD&D and Other Systems (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?60-Older-D-amp-D-AD-amp-D-and-Other-Systems)
sub forum.

[Malifice]

It means my goals in roleplaying games are unattainable in 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons.



Your 'goals' in playing a roleplaying game are:

1) To have 'a full compliment (weapons, armor, a belt, boots, necklace, 2 rings, head item, etc) of magic items used simultaneously,
2) Statistics to the maximum without sacrificing Feats,
3) Highest physical and magic abilities on individual characters, namely 3-4 natural attacks and tier/level 9 spells, and
4) items, feats, or other abilities, besides leveling in particular classes, to increase the uses of spells per day, Action Surge charges, Rages, etc.'

Then yeah, your 'goals' are unattainable in 5E.

Stick to Pathfinder where spending years of your life trawling through reams of splat to create such a thing is not only acceptable, but expected.

Maybe then after years and months of splat filtering and hundreds of 'builds', you can finally have your super cool sock puppet that you'll never actually play because no-one wants to play with you. Sounds like a life well spent.

[Ignimortis]

Your 'goals' in playing a roleplaying game are:

1) To have 'a full compliment (weapons, armor, a belt, boots, necklace, 2 rings, head item, etc) of magic items used simultaneously,
2) Statistics to the maximum without sacrificing Feats,
3) Highest physical and magic abilities on individual characters, namely 3-4 natural attacks and tier/level 9 spells, and
4) items, feats, or other abilities, besides leveling in particular classes, to increase the uses of spells per day, Action Surge charges, Rages, etc.'

Then yeah, your 'goals' are unattainable in 5E.

Stick to Pathfinder where spending years of your life trawling through reams of splat to create such a thing is not only acceptable, but expected.

Maybe then after years and months of splat filtering and hundreds of 'builds', you can finally have your super cool sock puppet that you'll never actually play because no-one wants to play with you. Sounds like a life well spent.

Why the hostility? Not everyone has to like 5e's default expectations. PF's high-power, high-magic games are just as valid, and some people want to play this way. OP has already decided that 5e is unsuitable for him, and thus he's not gonna be disappointed after trying to play. Everyone's better off in the end.

[Malifice]

Why the hostility? Not everyone has to like 5e's default expectations. PF's high-power, high-magic games are just as valid, and some people want to play this way. OP has already decided that 5e is unsuitable for him, and thus he's not gonna be disappointed after trying to play. Everyone's better off in the end.

OP decided this several threads ago. This is his 3rd such thread

Only posting to edition war.

[Contrast]

Why the hostility?

In fairness this is OPs 3rd(4th?) thread in the last week or so on exactly the same topic. They seem to have an oddly specific set of requirements which seem particularly chosen to be things which OP knows to be incapable to achieving in 5E (i.e. OPs insistence on getting exactly 3 base attacks and exactly level 9 spells despite neither being required to be a good gish in the context of 5E).

If OP doesn't like the sound of 5E and isn't willing to try it out there's not much advice we can give other than 'maybe try another system' and as 2D8HP pointed out, they'd probably be better off getting that advice on another board :smalltongue:

Edit - ninjad

[Chaosticket]

Im asking why people stress some gameplay aspects but not others.

The most common is about class balance. So you like it to be similar a videogame with clear class roles like Tank, Healer, Striker, but youll still find people able to combine them to magic Magic Knights, or Bookworms that go Hulk. Negatively everyone should be dependent on each other due to those class roles rather than have strong teamwork between players.

On roleplaying side there is character role, like "the wise man", "the experienced wanderer", which arent dependent on gameplay mechanics.

I see people having vastly different goals in any area. It becomes frustrating when I read or hear with contradictions in statements such saying people are glad they dont have to worry about not trying to make or play better character, but at the same time dont abandon the gameplay aspect and just have an Improvised Story Session.

Why do you play roleplaying games if you don't want to get into the role or play the games?

[Contrast]

Why do you play roleplaying games if you don't want to get into the role or play the games?

I remember in a previous thread you saying you don't really enjoy the roleplaying element of the game unless you're specifically roleplaying a chaotic neutral merc so that's an interesting question for you to put forward.

My most recent characters were a low ranking noble who has fallen out of favour/cash and was trying to do what we could to adjust to his new station in life while trying to claw his way back into high society and a young lad who had run away with the circus before deciding he wanted to be lauded rather than laughed at so tried his hand at becoming a hero instead.

Nothing from those descriptions tells you what my class was or what role I played in the party. That aspect of the game is why I play roleplaying games rather than computer games. The role I'm playing isn't 'tank' or 'support', it's 'Hrangar the Mighty who lost his love to orc raiders and now seeks revenge'.

I like 5E because it lets me play those characters in a fantasy game with magic in a reasonably balanced way with some room for improvisation.

Edit - as to why people might like to mix some tactics with some story rather than 100% one way or the other, consider why you might eat a cheese sandwich instead of just a loaf of bread or just a block of cheese.

[Unoriginal]

That's not what class balance is. Class balance is that no matter the options you picked for your PC, they should be relatively as efficient as any of the other people in the team.

5e is very good at this, with even the sub-par options being pretty close to the others.

Making a Magic Knight or a scholar who hulks out is trivial in 5e. You can do it with nothing but your PHB and five min.

Trying to act condescending by implying that people who don't want the character you want (aka a chaotic neutral guy who can fight like a lvl 20 Martial, magick like a lvl 20 Caster, and kill anyone without risk, who is obsessed with getting magic items and becoming more powerful and who wish to become a god and an emperor) aren't "get[ting] into the role or play[ing] the game" is not going to work.


Also, that you think things like "the wise man" or "the experienced wanderer" aren't part of the game prove you haven't read the Background section.

[Chaosticket]

If you read what I type as "Im better than you" in any way from roleplay to gaming, just nope. Im not a 40 year veteran or anything of the like.

I keep thinking up the contradictions. So people dont want to be "power gamers" focused on leveling or looking for items. At the same time they dont want anyone else to make stronger characters with better equipment. Avoiding competition is understandable so you arent in races for loot overtaking other goals like exploring the setting.

So if you don't care about competing why are you so concerned that no one can surpass you?

Should characters be self-sufficient or be dependent on you doing your class role?

Oh and you missed that I was summarizing Gandalf/Obi-wan and Aragorn/Han Solo. Was it intentional?

[Contrast]

Snip

And you say you want a system that lets you make a character thats amazing at everything but also doesn't have 'trap' options. You want a system that is either more or less 'video gamey' than 5E. People are capable of wanting multiple things at once.

For me 5E strikes the right balance between the various ingredients to make a good meal. You might prefer yours with a different mix of ingredients to make a different meal but there's not much point in railing against the fact that the stew hot pot I enjoy isn't a chocolate eclair. It wasn't meant to be.

Edit - As I see it what you're doing at the moment is asking people why they prefer stew hot pot to a chocolate eclair then getting confused when people say they enjoy the mix of meat and veg because you don't want meat and veg in your chocolate eclair.

To move away from the cooking metaphor. I enjoy some element of crunch in my game but I don't want it to consume the game. For me, 5E strikes that balance.

[2D8HP]

Im asking why people stress some gameplay aspects but not others.

The most coWhatbout class balance. So you like it to be similar a videogame with clear class roles like Tank, Healer, Striker, but youll still find people able to combine them to magic Magic Knights, or Bookworms that go Hulk. Negatively everyone should be dependent on each other due to those class roles rather than have strong teamwork between players.

On roleplaying side there is character role, like "the wise man", "the experienced wanderer", which arent dependent on gameplay mechanics.

I see people having vastly different goals in any area. It becomes frustrating when I read or hear with contradictions in statements such saying people are glad they dont have to worry about not trying to make or play better character, but at the same time dont abandon the gameplay aspect and just have an Improvised Story Session.

Why do you play roleplaying games if you don't want to get into the role or play the games?.

:confused:

@Chaosticket, I just don't understand what you just posted.

What contradictions?

Who is the "you"?

While there's other parts of gameplay (planding "builds" for example), for me the biggest part of the game is coming up with in-character decisions, that is the part where the DM/GM says "What do you do?".

I enjoy playing characters similar to Robin Hood (or most any character portrayed by Errol Flynn), Sinbad, Indiana Jones, Tonto, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser from fiction, and as long as my PC's may sometimes (with luck and/or skill)

Fire arrows

Swing swords

Track

Sneak

Hide

Climb

Swim

Convince,

Run,

Walk,

Speak,

and

Heal

I'm good.

I want to imagine a Knight on horseback charging a Dragon with a lance.

I also want to imagine an agile quick witted Rogue saving said Knight, from said Dragon.

Oh who am I kidding, "You play a guy with a sword (or a bow). You start at first level" will usually work.

Exploring a fantastic world that has dragons sitting on giant piles of treasure, sorcerers with Ill intent, and pirates all to be faced with a bow or sword in hand! That's what I want!

Being the waterboy for some wizard (as is the reputation of Pathfinder), not so much.

I just don't get what not having three attacks in whatever, a certain list of spells, and items has to do with that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

.

Exploring a fantastic world that has dragons sitting on giant piles of treasure, sorcerers with Ill intent, and pirates all to be faced with a bow or sword in hand! That's what I want!

Being the waterboy for some wizard (as is the reputation of Pathfinder), not so much.

I just don't get what not having three attacks in whatever, a certain list of spells, and items has to do with that.

I super agree here. Not wanting to be useless has nothing to do with power gaming. I'd say that any game design that promotes "make another character pointless" is a bad design for a cooperative game. Ideally, any chosen build should be reasonably effective, within normal variation. One thing I love about 5e is that I can have diverse parties of diverse skill levels and no one is outclassed ("being the waterboy") and no one is mandatory. No single character has enough power that I have to warp the game around them to prevent them from outclassing all possible competition. No character is weak enough that I have to give them pity buffs (or warp the game around them) to allow them to contribute. Everyone can contribute at all levels and situations.

And comparing mechanics to mechanics across editions is stupid. They're not comparable. At all.

[Willie the Duck]

If you read what I type as "Im better than you" in any way from roleplay to gaming, just nope.

Hard no. People are reading the reasonable interpretation of your words and actions these past 4-5 threads. If they have gotten an impression of you and your motivations that you feel is different from reality, the blame lies in your communication skills, not other people having a irrational interpretation of what you type.

I, very calmly and seriously (and hopefully putting aside any and all frustration and genuinely trying to be helpful) suggest that you go back over these several threads you have started, analyze your own behavior, and try to take away some insights into how you could have done better in communicating your questions in a way that did not convince the vast majority of us that you were a troll/edition warrior/just guy who like to throw rocks at hornets nests/whatever. Because, let's be clear, if you genuinely are not a troll/edition warrior/etc., then you are in serious need of improving your communication skills, and better to have learned that here on a fairly consequence-free venue.


Why the hostility? Not everyone has to like 5e's default expectations. PF's high-power, high-magic games are just as valid, and some people want to play this way. OP has already decided that 5e is unsuitable for him, and thus he's not gonna be disappointed after trying to play. Everyone's better off in the end.

Yes, actually. And pretty much everyone has been very, very clear on the whole 'there's no one right way to play, this just seems like a bad fit' thing (repeatedly over several threads, without acknowledgment). Once he acknowledged that yeah maybe his goals and 5e's were not optimally compatible, the situation was basically resolved (and many of us were thinking something along the lines of 'finally! Okay, what was different this time, such that that message landed this time?'). Both OP and everyone else coming back to hash on the topic was people picking nits on an already resolved situation. The thread has, for all intents and purposes, run its' course. But then again, the OP is still asking questions, so I guess maybe it isn't all settled.

[Rhedyn]

IDK, the ability to make "bad' characters is part of concept freedom.

For example, in Savage Worlds, you can make an attractive rich Noble that spends all combat shouting insults. That character is mechanically contributing to combat as a non-combat character just not to the same effect as the guy sweeping through enemy lines and collecting heads.

Both can be fun for both players.

[Contrast]

For example, in Savage Worlds, you can make an attractive rich Noble that spends all combat shouting insults.

I've never played Savage Worlds (heard good things though) so I can't comment specifically but this seems like a poorly chosen example as you just described a 5E bard (who gets to do that while still being mechanically helpful and useful to the party) :smalltongue:

[Rhedyn]

I've never played Savage Worlds (heard good things though) so I can't comment specifically but this seems like a poorly chosen example as you just described a 5E bard (who gets to do that while still being mechanically helpful and useful to the party) :smalltongue:
The example character could have put skill ranks in shooting and have great combat ability.

He didn't because he didn't want to do that. Sure a 5e Bard could only shout insults via cantrips to do damage but for the example Savage Worlds player that is just a re-flavor of shooting someone. It's not the same as distracting the enemy with such biting insults that they are easier to kill and furthermore the player in question doesn't want to do damage. In Savage Worlds the can build that character, in 5e he can't. He could ignore damage abilities but he gets no in system compensation for doing so.

[Unoriginal]

It's a Lore Bard or Mastermind Rogue (or multiclass) who dumped their Str and Dex, and maybe took the Leadership feat.

Sure, you're not going to be completely useless if you're forced to fight (you might even be able to defeat a bullywug on your own at level 5), but still.

[Rhedyn]

It's a Lore Bard or Mastermind Rogue (or multiclass) who dumped their Str and Dex, and maybe took the Leadership feat.

Sure, you're not going to be completely useless if you're forced to fight (you might even be able to defeat a bullywug on your own at level 5), but still.
But you can see that the character concept is different.

The posh martially incompetent Noble who solves problems with money or intrigue is an NPC in 5e while you can make an effective player character of that archetype in Savage Worlds that is still not bored during actual combat.

In 5e you are forced into becoming some sort of demi-god and having tons of class features designed to "keep up with everyone else". That is a pretty big limitation on character concepts and represents 5e's narrower focus.

[Toadkiller]

You know, I think 5e might get an unfair rap on the lack of customization front. We had a multi-year (real time) campaign. About halfway through for plot reasons my character left the party. It was kind of a fun scene and I was ready for something new.

Looking at what our party gaps were we “needed” a full caster, but we also lacked any healing and kept feeling the lack of thief skills. So, I built a knowledge cleric 1/divination wizard X with the spy/agent background.

She showed up with a reason to be there, her faction sent her to help. She had solid god wizard abilities, even level one healing word got folks out of death saves a handful of times and by making Dex a secondary focus she was useful at basic rogue skills, better than the rest anyhow. She came across as very much a bookish type. The first time she opened up the thieves tools and picked a lock was a fun character moment. On top of all that, cleric 1 gave her armor so more than once I was able to melee, briefly, if tactics required it.

My point being- this was a pretty basic build. It wasn’t any more “broken” than any wizard character but was capable of doing quite a bit of things both in and out of combat. I frequently had several solid turn options to pick from and one memorable fight I actually *tanked* for most of the fight using “shield” to up my AC while the usual front line regrouped.

It is absolutely possible to fill several key jobs in a party with 5e. It does require teamwork and a dash of creativity with party tactics. I felt really powerful with that character, though aside from “banishment” and the occasional well placed “fireball” she didn’t win many fights alone.

[Beelzebubba]

Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds.

Seriously, shut the **** up about Savage Worlds. Nobody cares.

[Unoriginal]

Seriously, shut the **** up about Savage Worlds. Nobody cares.


Just block the guy, Beelzebubba.

[Finlam]

You are a paragon of civility Beelzebubba.

Seriously though, comparing 5e to other tabletops is very much on topic since the topic is "Sell 5th edition to me".

Though if we wanted to just talk about other D&D iterations:

3.5 - Was a lot of fun, but it was also not uncommon for character creation to take hours. The magic item economy was a huge factor in this. I remember rolling up a level 11 character and everyone in the group shows up with 2 full pages of calculations for what items they can buy. It was fun to play and I've never seen an edition of D&D that allowed anywhere near as much customization, but combat was slow and complicated and character creation was slow and complicated.

4 - Was wizard's attempt to make WoW the tabletop. Every class was formulaic, and it felt like only fluff differentiated the classes at all. Character creation was easy because the decisions you made didn't really matter: you were just choosing a flavor of ice cream and everything was ultimately the same as long as your party had all the roles filled. 4E's saving grace was the monsters: it introduced minions, abilities that trigger when a monster is damaged, and really good swarm mechanics. Monsters were definitely the shiny gem in the steaming turd that was 4E.

5 - Is the easiest edition of D&D to teach to the uninitiated, character creation is fairly simple and straightforward. 5E is balanced enough to where optimization requires effort and knowledge of the game, but building an effective character does not: newbies don't need to worry about building an ineffective character on their first try and character creation is extremely quick. Gameplay also flows better: by switching to 5E (from 3.5) our group was able to fit 1.5x - 2x more encounters into the session (combat and non-combat encounters). The monsters are more complex with the concept of "Legendary Actions" and it will take a new DM a few tries to get the hang of balancing 5E encounters. All in all, there's enough customization, it's easy to teach, easy to create characters, and you get more game time instead of arguing over obscure rules and 10 minute + combat turns. Definitely the best edition of the game so far.

[2D8HP]

...Savage Worlds. Nobody cares..
Well I'm a bit interested, sounds like it culd be fun, and the OP may be as well, which is why I suggested that he maybe should be asking his queries at another sub forum:


...Perhap you should ask for more at the
Older D&D/AD&D and Other Systems (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?60-Older-D-amp-D-AD-amp-D-and-Other-Systems)
sub forum..

Now as to the original request of "Sell me on 5e" here goes:

I find 5e D&D fun, and since I've ranted at length on what I like, @Chaosticket, you should have a good idea if our tastes have anything in common.

I find few games that are played alone ro be better than a good book, so any game that's worthwhile for me to play needs some actual other players.

5e has actual other people playing it.

In my area it's relatively easy to have Dungeons & Dragons one night, Pathfinder another night, and Star Wars on a third.

If you have the time, and think 5e would be a "good enough" game, give it a try.

By it's reputation, Pathfinder sounds like it would be less fun for me than 5e, but I hope to try it anyway.

It's up to you @Chaosticket, if 5e looks to be good enough to be worth your time, given that the most significant rules are free on-line, you should have some idea if you want to try more.

If you're in the United States, unless you're deep in a wilderness, you should be able to find an Adventures League game that you may watch if not play.

If that doesn't seem worth your time you have other games to play.

[Chaosticket]

Well nice try. I wouldnt like anything that promoted upon reducing the most interesting and unusual options from previous versions of itself. It doesnt feel like anything new was added.

Id like to try all those other games people keep mentioning, but starting a group for every game under the rainbow isnt going to happen.

[Rhedyn]

Id like to try all those other games people keep mentioning, but starting my a group for every game under the rainbow isnt going to happen.
Offer to run your existing group through some one-shots.

Getting a group into a new system means you have to run it.

But then someone else gets an idea and runs another game with the same system.

My personal experience with Savage Worlds so far.

[Toadkiller]

Yeah, pretty much. We have a couple of people in our group lobbying for Fate. We have played some short campaigns in it and are back to 5e for at least a while. No reason not to bounce around systems if the group wants to.

[mephnick]

The posh martially incompetent Noble who solves problems with money or intrigue is an NPC in 5e .

Yes. Every character is supposed to be a competent adventurer because D&D is about adventurers going on adventures. That is a core design concept of the brand and especially 5e. People try to twist it into something else sometimes and now I can tell them to go buy Savage Worlds because they don't want to play D&D.

[2D8HP]

Well nice try. I wouldnt like anything that promoted upon reducing the most interesting and unusual options from previous versions of itself. It doesnt feel like anything new was added... .
Matter of taste.

Now that Xanthar's Guide is out there's very little rules options that 3e/3.5/Pathfinder has that I find 5e lacking, but on the other hand 5e has Backgrounds, Ideals, Flaws, etc which I've grown found of, and miss in older D&D (though I'm still game for some TSR B/X).


Id like to try all those other games people keep mentioning, but starting a group for every game under the rainbow isnt going to happen..
No it won't, I failed in my attempts to convince others to play Pendragon in the 1980's ("Dude, 6th century Britain just doesn't sound fun"), and didn't get to play it until more than 30 years later (great game to play, but character creation is more toil than I remembered).


Yes. Every character is supposed to be a competent adventurer because D&D is about adventurers going on adventures. That is a core design concept of the brand and especially 5e. People try to twist it into something else sometimes and now I can tell them to go buy Savage Worlds because they don't want to play D&D..
While I have Savage World's on a shelf somewhere, I'm not really familiar with it, but a month never passes without my reading a post from someone complaining about that D&D isn't this or that, and usually I think of a game that I am familiar with that sounds like more what they want, I used to suggest those other games more until I realized that ultimately the complaints can't be "Why isn't there a game that....", because with multi-hundreds of games, of course there's a game that does whatever, and the complaints really boil down to, "Why don't I know a group of people near me who share my tastes and schedule?".

[MxKit]

The posh martially incompetent Noble who solves problems with money or intrigue is an NPC in 5e


Yes. Every character is supposed to be a competent adventurer because D&D is about adventurers going on adventures. That is a core design concept of the brand and especially 5e.

The funny thing is, it's not even true despite what these people say, but whether or not that sort of character is appropriate depends heavily on the game.

If you find a DM who's running a super combat light adventure—a game where the heaviest focus is on the social pillar, maybe with some exploration pillar stuff and minimal combat pillar—maybe a game full of political intrigue? You can 100% make a character who dumps Strength and Dexterity, who doesn't carry around weapons or shields or wear armor. Be a Lore or Glamour or Whispers Bard (or hell, any non-primarily-martial class that gives you non-martial utility) and pick non-combat spells. Be a Mastermind Rogue and never carry anything that would let you proc Sneak Attack; you can even ask your DM to add in a sap as a weapon that does just 1 bludgeoning damage, if you like.

And the funny thing is, you can even make this exact build for any adventuring game, including a dungeon crawl! It will just... not be very good in a game that has focus on the combat pillar, because you are specifically looking to make a character that's martially incompetent. You can always hang on the back lines during actual fights and just inspire and help out your allies and run away from enemies, but you might not enjoy doing that. And that's because it's kind of ridiculous to make a character who's completely **** at being an adventurer and stick them into a standard adventuring party. You have to actually look for a game where the players are not meant to be playing a standard adventuring party, and those totally exist.

So, yeah, in a game where the party already consists of a Barbarian, a Ranger, a Rogue, and a Wizard, and they're going around through dungeons and challenging orcs and dragons, Mr. Non-Combantant Noble who can only do money and intrigue would be better off as an NPC. They wouldn't really have need of his skillset and he'd honestly have no reason to want to join them. Then again, in a political chessboard intrigue-heavy game taking place primarily in the court of the king and having little to no combat, Mr. Punchy Barbarian who has dumped every stat besides Strength and Constitution and doesn't have any skills or abilities outside of Hit Thing With Other Thing would probably work best as an NPC, too.

[Rhedyn]

While I have Savage World's on a shelf somewhere, I'm not really familiar with it, but a month never passes without my reading a post from someone complaining about that D&D isn't this or that, and usually I think of a game that I am familiar with that sounds like more what they want, I used to suggest those other games more until I realized that ultimately the complaints can't be "Why isn't there a game that....", because with multi-hundreds of games, of course there's a game that does whatever, and the complaints really boil down to, "Why don't I know a group of people near me who share my tastes and schedule?".
To clarify a bit, I would say it's a pretty trivial thing to make a "competent" adventurer in Savage Worlds. You start with 15 skill points. If 3 of them go into Fighting, Shooting, or Throwing, your d8 means you are good at combat not just passable. A d6 is good enough most of the time.

A lot of times people say "competent" when they mean "killing things". But you could go out of your way to make someone who shouldn't be adventuring and they will still have neat but thematically fitting activities to do in combat.
Edit: it's kind of the consequence of the pulp action hero movie roots of the game. Those movies tended to have non-combatants in the action scene so making that playable was a consideration since the inception.

[Chaosticket]

I opened a thread about finding Role-playing groups over in the Other Games section.

[ZorroGames]

I am much more experienced in second edition Dungeons and Dragons than any other. In 3rd edition I have some, Pathfinder more than that. So Im new to fifth edition and I havent played much. I'm trying to find things to look forward to but I'm just finding walls in just about anything I liked about the other games.

Then play the other games. This is another of your “5e is lame” threads isn’t?

[mephnick]

. Then again, in a political chessboard intrigue-heavy game taking place primarily in the court of the king and having little to no combat.

Why on earth are you using D&D for this?

That's my point. I can try and run an action packed shoot 'em up in Call of Cthulhu, but I wouldn't. That's not what the system is for. There are systems that do what you want.

[CantigThimble]

Why on earth are you using D&D for this?

That's my point. I can try and run an action packed shoot 'em up in Call of Cthulhu, but I wouldn't. That's not what the system is for. There are systems that do what you want.

Because finding new RPGs for a group is often much more time, money and trouble than it is worth and if your group is good enough it barely matters what system you use.

But I will agree with you that having a group flexible enough to run political intrigue in D&D and have it be fun is not at all a selling point for the system. All it means is that your group could probably run any style in any system and enjoy it.

[2D8HP]

I opened a thread about finding Role-playing groups over in the Other Games section.


Good luck!


...I can try and run an action packed shoot 'em up in Call of Cthulhu, but I wouldn't. That's not what the system is for. There are systems that do what you want..
I did use what was mostly Call of Cthullu rules for a cold war "espionage' game.

It required some tweaking, but it worked pretty well, certainly easier than my learning the rules for Champions or Top Secret.

[MxKit]

Why on earth are you using D&D for this?

That's my point. I can try and run an action packed shoot 'em up in Call of Cthulhu, but I wouldn't. That's not what the system is for. There are systems that do what you want.

I'm not personally, but I'd be willing to play in one that did, because D&D is a simple and fun system to make characters in and I own the required books for it.

It's possible to do it; it's arguably easy to do it, simply by adjusting the three pillars of play that are already there. The system is capable of it and some DMs run those kinds of games. That's all I'm really saying; it can be done and there are DMs out there that would allow/encourage that kind of character at their table, so saying it's flat-out impossible isn't really accurate.

Saying that it's not a character that fits in the sort of game most people use D&D to run is accurate, but even then it's possible—the only reason anyone calls it "impossible" is that it's not going to be a character that anyone in the table enjoys being there, or one that would have an in-game reason to want to be there.


But I will agree with you that having a group flexible enough to run political intrigue in D&D and have it be fun is not at all a selling point for the system. All it means is that your group could probably run any style in any system and enjoy it.

I definitely wouldn't say it's a selling point of the system, though! My point was just that a)that type of character is fully possible to build for even a standard game of D&D, it just wouldn't work well in that game with a standard adventuring party, and b)the types of D&D games that type of character would work for do exist, but you have to actually look for them. They are nonstandard, though I'd argue that it's not terribly difficult to run that sort of game; the combat pillar gets most of the focus in the books, but the others are still entirely possible to do things with, and if you can do things with 'em you can bring 'em to the forefront.

[Luccan]

Why on earth are you using D&D for this?

That's my point. I can try and run an action packed shoot 'em up in Call of Cthulhu, but I wouldn't. That's not what the system is for. There are systems that do what you want.

I see this a lot, where you aren't supposed to do heavy RP political stuff in D&D (and admittedly, it doesn't have a lot of well thought out rules for it). But given I've never played a tabletop RPG where that's the focus... What rules are used in those games? I could see an argument where a more freeform game is better, but are there rules heavy/medium games for these king's court situations? Because I still don't think I fully understand why you "aren't supposed to do political/social intrigue" in D&D.

[Ignimortis]

I see this a lot, where you aren't supposed to do heavy RP political stuff in D&D (and admittedly, it doesn't have a lot of well thought out rules for it). But given I've never played a tabletop RPG where that's the focus... What rules are used in those games? I could see an argument where a more freeform game is better, but are there rules heavy/medium games for these king's court situations? Because I still don't think I fully understand why you "aren't supposed to do political/social intrigue" in D&D.

To be honest, these things can get ridiculous with even moderate spell access like D&D presumes you will have on half the classes. An illusionist or enchanter wizard can create absolute havoc, even if the nobles are loaded with magical trinkets to protect them from magical manipulation and so on. This can be just as fun for the players, trying to outwit both the IC characters and OOC DM.

[Luccan]

To be honest, these things can get ridiculous with even moderate spell access like D&D presumes you will have on half the classes. An illusionist or enchanter wizard can create absolute havoc, even if the nobles are loaded with magical trinkets to protect them from magical manipulation and so on. This can be just as fun for the players, trying to outwit both the IC characters and OOC DM.

Oh sure and that's been a reason I've seen listed as why you shouldn't, but access to and how you use that magic has a lot of game dependent factors. A DM has to plan with it in mind, it's true. But if that's the only reason, well, it's one that can be worked around. What I really want to know is, what other games (supposedly or not) provide a better experience in that regard and how do they do so?

[Beelzebubba]

Seriously, shut the **** up about Savage Worlds. Nobody cares.

That was completely uncalled for, so Rhedyn, I apologize.

I shouldn't have posted angry, and that was the worst way to post.

[Rhedyn]

I see this a lot, where you aren't supposed to do heavy RP political stuff in D&D (and admittedly, it doesn't have a lot of well thought out rules for it). But given I've never played a tabletop RPG where that's the focus... What rules are used in those games? I could see an argument where a more freeform game is better, but are there rules heavy/medium games for these king's court situations? Because I still don't think I fully understand why you "aren't supposed to do political/social intrigue" in D&D. Savage Worlds has one page of social conflict rules.

The front-man makes 3 rounds of persuasion checks vs the standard DC or an opposed persuasion check.

Others can help with the check by using the assisting check rules. So if they pass the check, the front-man's roll is increased by 1.

There are modifiers applied to your roll based on evidence you bring or GM discretion.

If the topic you are talking about is academic, you roll the lower of your persuasion or knowledge die.

After 3 rounds, your victories are totalled up and you reference the table to determine how convinced the NPC is about your point.

In play, it's just a normal role-play conversation but I call for checks every now and then. Everyone has a reason to participate since they can't make the front-man's job harder by rolling low.

[UrielAwakened]

4 - Was wizard's attempt to make WoW the tabletop. Every class was formulaic, and it felt like only fluff differentiated the classes at all. Character creation was easy because the decisions you made didn't really matter: you were just choosing a flavor of ice cream and everything was ultimately the same as long as your party had all the roles filled. 4E's saving grace was the monsters: it introduced minions, abilities that trigger when a monster is damaged, and really good swarm mechanics. Monsters were definitely the shiny gem in the steaming turd that was 4E.

vs.


5 - Is the easiest edition of D&D to teach to the uninitiated, character creation is fairly simple and straightforward. 5E is balanced enough to where optimization requires effort and knowledge of the game, but building an effective character does not: newbies don't need to worry about building an ineffective character on their first try and character creation is extremely quick. Gameplay also flows better: by switching to 5E (from 3.5) our group was able to fit 1.5x - 2x more encounters into the session (combat and non-combat encounters). The monsters are more complex with the concept of "Legendary Actions" and it will take a new DM a few tries to get the hang of balancing 5E encounters. All in all, there's enough customization, it's easy to teach, easy to create characters, and you get more game time instead of arguing over obscure rules and 10 minute + combat turns. Definitely the best edition of the game so far.

Is so brimming with bias. Lmfao. Literally everything you said positive about 5e applies to 4e as well.

This place is so filled with grognards I wouldn't listen to anything they say about tabletops or 5e. Play Savage Worlds, it's a better D&D-esque RPG anyway.

[Unoriginal]

This place is so filled with grognards I wouldn't listen to anything they say about tabletops or 5e. Play Savage Worlds, it's a better D&D-esque RPG anyway.

Since you don't want to listen to what people on this forum say about tabletops or 5e, and think Savage World is better, does it mean you're going to stop posting here and go on the SW forums?

[PhoenixPhyre]

vs.



Is so brimming with bias. Lmfao. Literally everything you said positive about 5e applies to 4e as well.

This place is so filled with grognards I wouldn't listen to anything they say about tabletops or 5e. Play Savage Worlds, it's a better D&D-esque RPG anyway.

Character creation in 4e was not quick or newbie friendly at all. Everyone had a bunch of different options (even at first level)--race, class, feats, weapon choices, ability choices (all of which interact) and way more math. This got exponentially worse at higher levels.

Running combats in 4e is much heavier--there were many more conditional effects. I can get through a round of 5e combat in about 2-3 minutes; that same size of round took 10-15 in 4e. Add in that a 5e combat lasts ~3-4 rounds at all levels; a 4e combat would take ~4-8, with higher levels taking more turns (padded sumo).

And I like 4e, so this isn't bias.

[Unoriginal]

Isn't it generally considered that 4e monsters were badly built until the third monster manual?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Isn't it generally considered that 4e monsters were badly built until the third monster manual?

Right. Too much health, not enough damage.

Oddly enough, 5e MM monsters have about half the HP the DMG suggests and higher damage (ie lower defensive CR, higher offensive CR, averaging out right). I think they've learned.

[N810]

Seems a bit silly but ok then....
https://www.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606
I expect a 10% commission.

[Willie the Duck]

Is so brimming with bias. Lmfao. Literally everything you said positive about 5e applies to 4e as well.

Use your words. We will not make your points for you. You have to do your own legwork. There are few things less counterproductive than posting 'lmfao,' it just makes people think you can't back up your derision with an actual functional argument, or can't be bothered to take the time (in which case why should they take the effort to care?). What specific things were said that falsely creates a distinction between 4e and 5e where they are in fact actually effectively the same?


This place is so filled with grognards I wouldn't listen to anything they say about tabletops or 5e.

This place? Here? As in these boards? Giants in the Playground? Of all the boards I visit, this one has I am pretty sure the lowest ratio of players who have played TSR-era D&D, or at least actively discuss it.


Play Savage Worlds, it's a better D&D-esque RPG anyway.

I highly doubt SW is better at being D&D than D&D is, but I highly encourage anyone and everyone to go out and play the TTRPG that best suits their preferred playing style.


Since you don't want to listen to what people on this forum say about tabletops or 5e, and think Savage World is better, does it mean you're going to stop posting here and go on the SW forums?

If people didn't consider stirring up hornet's nests to be a preferable activity to actually actively attempting to improve their gaming experience, then this thread wouldn't exist.

[Unoriginal]

If people didn't consider stirring up hornet's nests to be a preferable activity to actually actively attempting to improve their gaming experience, then this thread wouldn't exist.

Which would be an excellent thing.

[mephnick]

This place? Here? As in these boards? Giants in the Playground? Of all the boards I visit, this one has I am pretty sure the lowest ratio of players who have played TSR-era D&D, or at least actively discuss it. .

Easily the lowest if we aren't counting reddit. There's at least some older people here who remember how D&D used to be, but it's easy to see many were raised on 3.5 or 4e.

I think people on r/dndnext would have an aneurysm if they had to play old-school D&D, so GitP is better than that.

[ad_hoc]

Easily the lowest if we aren't counting reddit. There's at least some older people here who remember how D&D used to be, but it's easy to see many were raised on 3.5 or 4e.

I think people on r/dndnext would have an aneurysm if they had to play old-school D&D, so GitP is better than that.

And the few people who do tend to be at odds with most of the other posters.

[Scripten]

This thread went about as well as I expected it to.

Since the subject at hand is settled and we're once again in Edition Wars IX: The Trolls Strike Back, could we possibly see this topic closed and maybe someone culling the amount of topics dedicated to low-key system trashing and passive aggressiveness?

[mephnick]

This thread went about as well as I expected it to.

Since the subject at hand is settled and we're once again in Edition Wars IX: The Trolls Strike Back, could we possibly see this topic closed and maybe someone culling the amount of topics dedicated to low-key system trashing and passive aggressiveness?

Could we also immediately delete any post to the effect of "Sell this edition to me" or "Differences between 5e and 3.5?"

Do your own damn homework.

[strangebloke]

Then play the other games. This is another of your “5e is lame” threads isn’t?


Could we also immediately delete any post to the effect of "Sell this edition to me" or "Differences between 5e and 3.5?"

Do your own damn homework.
Chaos ticket has made like four of these threads on the last two weeks. I reported him for spamming/edition warring.

It's obnoxious.

[2D8HP]

And the few people who do tend to be at odds with most of the other posters.


Are we?

I don't see much more argumentativeness from those of us who played TSR D&D than from anyone else who's played with more than one rules (i.e. the 3.5 vs. 5e arguments).

I do grant that those who've only played with RPG's rules and are just getting there feet wet usually seem less combative.

Maybe my perspective is skewed.

[Willie the Duck]

Which would be an excellent thing.

No raindrop blames itself for the flood. We all have the power to stop this type of thread from propagating--do not continue to post in it. Apparently we don't actually want that to happen.


This thread went about as well as I expected it to.

Since the subject at hand is settled and we're once again in Edition Wars IX: The Trolls Strike Back, could we possibly see this topic closed and maybe someone culling the amount of topics dedicated to low-key system trashing and passive aggressiveness?

They clearly could (other sites do), but that seems to be against the moderation philosophy of this board.

[mephnick]

And the few people who do tend to be at odds with most of the other posters.

I'll never see eye to eye with the average "modern gamer", if that's even the right term, but I try. I do get in to arguments but I try not to. However, there is no doubt the hobby has definitely evolved toward a "narrative, make everyone feel special" kind of gaming, which is fine, these things go in cycles. I can even see how it's preferable.

When I was a kid our characters got "unfairly" retired all the time. Arms lost, brain dead, paralyzed, diseased, permanently blinded. Killed for failing a single roll. Whatever. We loved it! Now it seems as if PCs have gone from being a tool to have an adventure into some special imaginary friend and I'll literally die if I can't see his story to a satisfying conclusion. Back in my day you got eaten by wolves and excitedly rolled a new character hoping he wouldn't get eaten by wolves.

Edit: I tried to make it sound less like an old man rambling but failed.

[Chaosticket]

Chaos ticket has made like four of these threads on the last two weeks. I reported him for spamming/edition warring.

It's obnoxious.
And I dispute that again. I still am not the person bringing up edition wars in this thread. Youre making your comments to antagonize me and extend this thread.

What is going on here has nothing to do with me. I havent even posted in a while so do not blame me for people taking subtopics and going into their own directions. Personally I would say "take it into private", but last time I tried to private message someone it was disabled, so I dont know if it works. edit: it doesnt work on a Smartphone.

I found out what I needed to know page 1. Im looking for item and character upgrades so good or bad game day I still have something to play around. I use Battletech as an example as buying and upgrading individual battlemechs, managing mercenary teams, and taking missions for money. I really like games with what are called "RPG elements" http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RPGElements

After all the comments ranging basically between nicer "5th edition isnt that game" to the much worse "theres something wrong with you for liking that, go away you freak!" I have a negative view of people, not 5th edition itself.

[Scripten]

Are we?

I don't see much more argumentativeness from those of us who played TSR D&D than from anyone else who's played with more than one rules (i.e. the 3.5 vs. 5e arguments).

I do grant that those who've only played with RPG's rules and are just getting there feet wet usually seem less combative.

Maybe my perspective is skewed.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I don't think you would count as the pejorative form of the term grognard, 2D8HP, username notwithstanding. :P I haven't seen you trashing on "modern games" or unreasonably criticizing every single change to the hobby since the 70's. Honestly, the most combativeness I've seen on these boards comes from people hopping from their preferred edition into other sub-forums to go on and on about their pet peeves. (That's not aimed at people with criticisms of any particular edition, just those who can't seem to stop bringing it up every chance they get.)


And I dispute that again. I still am not the person bringing up edition wars in this thread.

You really should work on how your phrase your posts and the way you communicate, then, because even in this post you say:


I really like games with what are called "RPG elements" as the above.

After all the comments ranging between nicer "5th edition isnt that game" to the much worse "theres something wrong with you for liking that, go away you freak!"

Besides putting words in peoples' mouths, you're also insinuating that 5th edition is lacking RPG elements, which is going to rub some people the wrong way. Perhaps that is not your intention, but this is the, what, third or fourth topic you've made in the sub-forum that's gone the same way?

The vast majority of the people in this sub-forum likely have no intention of getting into these arguments, but it seems like at least one of every five topics that's stuck to the top of the list for a decent amount of time these past few weeks has devolved into edition warring. Some you can avoid, but others don't have any indication of the arguments within. It stands to reason that people are getting touchy and exhausted with re-litigating the arguments.

[strangebloke]

And I dispute that again. I still am not the person bringing up edition wars in this thread. Youre making your comments to antagonize me and extend this thread.

What is going on here has nothing to do with me. I havent even posted in a while so do not blame me for people taking subtopics and going into their own directions. Personally I would say "take it into private", but last time I tried to private message someone it was disabled, so I dont know if it works. edit: it doesnt work on a Smartphone.


Really?

You have 'nothing to do' with three threads that turned into edition wars in their first page?

Ok.

I'll extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being truthful.

First off, sorry.

But here's something you should know:

Some threads should never be made. Not because there's anything wrong with the questions themselves, but because if you start them, they will always lead to stupid fights, and because you can Google those questions easily.

This thread is called 'sell me on 5e.' people will reply helpfully with reasons why they like it. People will reply to those people with reasons they don't like it. Bam, edition war. The chain of causality is very short there. You exacerbated that problem by repeatedly bringing up things that you could do in Pathfinder but can't in 5e. Saying things like, "I would rather play a video game than 5e then" implies that your video game is inherently superior. Might not be your intent, but it rustles the jimmies, so to speak.

Meanwhile, there are literally hundreds of threads like this already. Read one or two and you should get the idea.

And even then, you've made a thread like this three times? Four times? Each time the thread has ended by saying, "don't play 5e, it isn't for you." Each time, you've assented. "No I guess it isn't."

How many times do you need to make this thread before you get the picture? 5e is not a video game. Other ttrpgs are closer, but nothing is more video gamey than a video game. MMO's are pretty video gamey, from what I've been told.

[Rhedyn]

I highly doubt SW is better at being D&D than D&D is, but I highly encourage anyone and everyone to go out and play the TTRPG that best suits their preferred playing style.
That really depends on what you mean by D&D. But you are right in that SW shouldn't be better at being D&D than D&D is because D&D is D&D.

Is D&D playing classes like Fighter, Wizard, and rogue? Then SW lack of classes is a problem for you.

Is D&D the character building mini-game? Well SW has far more of that than 5e and covers about as many concepts as 3e, but the tons of mechanics tied to specific flavor isn't there. A SW mystic theurge doesn't have cleric and wizard casting. He took an arcane background (probably magic or miracles) and powers to match his concept and then applied appropriate trappings. A SW mindflayer isn't taking class levels in the race, he is building mindflayers in the race building system and maybe throwing future advancements to either grow into abilities or buy off extra hindrances he took to make the race fair.

Is D&D cool magic items? You don't get the Christmas tree effect of 3e but you don't not get it like in 5e. There is a list of a bunch of unique magic items with unique effects, or the item can boost your stats, grant "feats", or cast spells in SW. You don't NEED magic items, but you want them and there is no magic item cap to worry about.

Is D&D having HP? SW doesn't have HP, so if you need Tucker's Kobolds to plink 3 damage over and over again, then SW does not support that beyond abstract probabilities of a little stab exploding enough to hurt you.

Is D&D in-depth safe utility magic? Utility magic is available via Horror magic rituals (by explicitly lengthening the duration or mechanics of "spells") or via Dramatic Tasks (a mechanical challenge to do, but up to the GM the effect) and both of those can go horribly wrong / eat up a critical resource (bennies). Normal powers really can't compare to high level D&D spells outside of the Shaintar or Rifts setting rules or the Super Powers companion.

Is D&D the casters being better than martials? In SW this idea is hard to grasp because flavoring your abilities is on the Player, but furthermore martial attacks are dangerous and skills don't really get replaced by any sane mage.

Is D&D the d20? SW barely uses that particular dice.

Is D&D not a pulp action hero genre? Pulp 80s action heroes or basically most movies is how SW feels. You as a player are more special than normal people and about as special as important NPCs. You get a luck mechanic that also let's you avoid wounds. Everyone is not on the same playing field in SW. Some people are Wild Cards, everyone else is extras. Extras die faster and have worse luck. The difference between a level 1 player and a level 20 player is experience/skill not really raw might.
It's like the difference between volume 1 Spiderman and a much later Spiderman with more experience. His powers really didn't change, but he is much more capable now. To get that 3e feel of leveling, your GM would have to give you super power points as you level and super powers from the super powers companion. And those abilities won't feel like DnD. Your wizard/fighter/rogue will evolve to different kinds of play, but it will feel like a comic book not a 3e wizard.

[ad_hoc]

I'll never see eye to eye with the average "modern gamer", if that's even the right term, but I try. I do get in to arguments but I try not to. However, there is no doubt the hobby has definitely evolved toward a "narrative, make everyone feel special" kind of gaming, which is fine, these things go in cycles. I can even see how it's preferable.

When I was a kid our characters got "unfairly" retired all the time. Arms lost, brain dead, paralyzed, diseased, permanently blinded. Killed for failing a single roll. Whatever. We loved it! Now it seems as if PCs have gone from being a tool to have an adventure into some special imaginary friend and I'll literally die if I can't see his story to a satisfying conclusion. Back in my day you got eaten by wolves and excitedly rolled a new character hoping he wouldn't get eaten by wolves.

Edit: I tried to make it sound less like an old man rambling but failed.

Why not both!?

I'm all for PC spotlight time. At our table we have a rule of no duplicate classes at the table to make this easier.

PCs and parties also die horribly fairly regularly. I'm with you that the notion that PCs dying is a failure of the DM/game/players is mind boggling.

I also don't like the trend of pre-writing a character's story and then forcing that story onto the game. Isn't the entire point to make it up as you go along? This goes hand in hand with players trying to make their character the main protagonist in the story rather than an equal part of an ensemble.


Are we?

I don't see much more argumentativeness from those of us who played TSR D&D than from anyone else who's played with more than one rules (i.e. the 3.5 vs. 5e arguments).

I do grant that those who've only played with RPG's rules and are just getting there feet wet usually seem less combative.

Maybe my perspective is skewed.

It's not a matter of being argumentative, it's just that our playstyles are usually much different than people who come from 3.x or later. So we have different answers to questions and frame the game in a different way. If there is a consensus about something on this board, it is the players from old editions who are most likely to be at odds with it.

[Willie the Duck]

That really depends on what you mean by D&D. But you are right in that SW shouldn't be better at being D&D than D&D is because D&D is D&D.

Well, I wasn't intending to go the argument-by-tautology route (although those have gotten an unfair bad rap. Some of them (http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/#H2) are quite amusing). I would say that there are a number of all-very-arguable, but still very real qualities which make something a D&D-alike. Certainly I consider Pathfinder to be in the mix, and maybe Tunnels and Trolls or Paladium, as they were D&D heartbreakers/retroclones/OSR-styles before there were such terms. It's a hard hill to defend to say "this clearly is, but no that clearly isn't." But that doesn't mean that there isn't something that is and things that clearly aren't D&D (well outside of IP arguments), just like it's hard to define genres of music or art.



Is D&D playing classes like Fighter, Wizard, and rogue? Then SW lack of classes is a problem for you.

Class vs. non-class seems to be a big dividing line in TTRPGs. So not have a problem, but I'd definitely say this is an un-D&D quality within SW.


Is D&D the character building mini-game? Well SW has far more of that than 5e and covers about as many concepts as 3e, but the tons of mechanics tied to specific flavor isn't there. A SW mystic theurge doesn't have cleric and wizard casting. He took an arcane background (probably magic or miracles) and powers to match his concept and then applied appropriate trappings. A SW mindflayer isn't taking class levels in the race, he is building mindflayers in the race building system and maybe throwing future advancements to either grow into abilities or buy off extra hindrances he took to make the race fair.

Meh. About half of D&Ds have a big character building component, so I wouldn't call it a real D&D-ism. YMMV, of course.


Is D&D cool magic items? You don't get the Christmas tree effect of 3e but you don't not get it like in 5e. There is a list of a bunch of unique magic items with unique effects, or the item can boost your stats, grant "feats", or cast spells in SW. You don't NEED magic items, but you want them and there is no magic item cap to worry about.

And TSR-era has an even more varied relationship with magic items (you kinda needed them, at least +x weapons to hit lots of monsters, and 'ability to use cool magic swords' was a defining fighter class feature). I'd say it is important to D&D, but lots of other games very un-D&D-like (Traveller, Metamorphosis Alpha, Cyberpunk, heck MechWarrior if you squint hard enough, etc.) also have 'loot' as a major factor. So that's one where it is inherent to D&D... but also much of everything else.


Is D&D having HP? SW doesn't have HP, so if you need Tucker's Kobolds to plink 3 damage over and over again, then SW does not support that beyond abstract probabilities of a little stab exploding enough to hurt you.
Again, so many TTRPGs use hp.


Is D&D in-depth safe utility magic? Utility magic is available via Horror magic rituals (by explicitly lengthening the duration or mechanics of "spells") or via Dramatic Tasks (a mechanical challenge to do, but up to the GM the effect) and both of those can go horribly wrong / eat up a critical resource (bennies). Normal powers really can't compare to high level D&D spells outside of the Shaintar or Rifts setting rules or the Super Powers companion.

Think I would need to know more about SW's specifics to answer.


Is D&D the casters being better than martials? In SW this idea is hard to grasp because flavoring your abilities is on the Player, but furthermore martial attacks are dangerous and skills don't really get replaced by any sane mage.

No, that's an accident of edition. Early D&D a wizard was absolutely a niche build. Many people didn't play the game at the levels where spells could rewrite reality in a plot-solving way, and the restrictions on spellcasting (such as spell disruption) had actual teeth. It was very much like artillery in a wargame--fragile, hard to utilize but powerful when done right special unit that had to be protected by multiple main combat units or it will be over run while never getting to use its' special trick.


Is D&D the d20? SW barely uses that particular dice.

I personally can't be bothered to get up a head of steam over dice. They are random number generators. There are practical design consequences of using 1d20 or 2d6 or 3d6 or XdY, but that's it. Others might disagree.


Is D&D not a pulp action hero genre? Pulp 80s action heroes or basically most movies is how SW feels. You as a player are more special than normal people and about as special as important NPCs. You get a luck mechanic that also let's you avoid wounds. Everyone is not on the same playing field in SW. Some people are Wild Cards, everyone else is extras. Extras die faster and have worse luck. The difference between a level 1 player and a level 20 player is experience/skill not really raw might.
It's like the difference between volume 1 Spiderman and a much later Spiderman with more experience. His powers really didn't change, but he is much more capable now. To get that 3e feel of leveling, your GM would have to give you super power points as you level and super powers from the super powers companion. And those abilities won't feel like DnD. Your wizard/fighter/rogue will rogue evolve to different kinds of play, but it will feel like a comic book not a 3e wizard.

Boy, that's the toughest one. Because back in 2e there were some green-covered 'D&D in historical settings' splatbooks that were not big sellers at the time, but are well regarded in retrospect and definitely feel like D&D (or at least 'alt-D&D'). There are also various grimdark D&Ds like Dark Sun and Ravenloft that are just a little too their own thing to be pulp (pulp horror, to me, for instance, is Hammer Horror, which base D&D already is so Ravenloft can't be if it is a subset of D&D). I guess I would say that both SW and D&D lean pulp-ish compared to the larger totality of TTRPGs.

You raise interesting questions.

[Chaosticket]

I was hoping this thread wouldve end long ago especially after trying to reach a Final Note.

Okay turn this around to something positive. Instead of comparing 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons to other like Savage Worlds just say what you like about 5th edition.

It is fairly easy to learn. Proficiencies confused me at first as I didnt know it also was about defense abilities and your to-hit rolls. After I learned that it was easy to know what weapons, tools, skills, and Defenses your class is good at.

[Rhedyn]

just say what you like about 5th edition.

The artwork.

The books are laid out pretty well.

...

[GlenSmash!]

just say what you like about 5th edition.

The Starter Set was a really fun adventure.

[Willie the Duck]

just say what you like about 5th edition.

The Background mechanic does a really good job of mixing flavor with enough mechanics to dip into a side-role.

[2D8HP]

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I don't think you would count as the pejorative form of the term grognard, 2D8HP, username notwithstanding. :P I haven't seen you trashing on "modern games" or unreasonably criticizing every single change to the hobby since the 70's. Honestly, the most combativeness I've seen on these boards comes from people hopping from their preferred edition into other sub-forums to go on and on about their pet peeves. (That's not aimed at people with criticisms of any particular edition, just those who can't seem to stop bringing it up every chance they get.)....
Well...especially if you look at my posts from two years ago, I was a bit more cantankerous, and it still comes out from time to time (@Willie the Duck, can attest to my crankiness towards guns in D&D!), but as I get used to 5e I like it more.


...It's not a matter of being argumentative, it's just that our playstyles are usually much different than people who come from 3.x or later. So we have different answers to questions and frame the game in a different way. If there is a consensus about something on this board, it is the players from old editions who are most likely to be at odds with it..
Recently a 5e DM by having some traps and antagonists that couldn't just be steamrolled made 5e "feel more like D&D" to me, without any changes to the rules, and I felt more "at home" than I have in a while (a PC at 0 HP brings me back!).


..just say what you like about 5th edition...


Will do:


1) The majority of my PC's reach 2nd level.

2) Backgrounds give me more options at the start.

3) Multi-classing is easier.

4) Actual other people want to play the game.

5) Using Standard Array means I choose what PC I want to play, instead of the dice choosing, but I don't have to go through the long point buy character creation "mini-game" of GURPS and HERO.

6) In old D&D the equipment that your PC carried was often more important than the PC's "stats", and budgeting for optimal equipment was the longest part of character creation, 5e's Standard Equipment spares me that toil.

7) By which class, sub-class, and options I choose, I can make play simpler or more option filled as I like.

If I want it easy, a Standard Human, no Feats, "Champion" Fighter is real easy to play, if I want some more complexity and options, levels in other classes or sub-classes let me do that.

8) It's easier for me to make 5e what I like about TD&D than it is to make TD&D what I like about 5e WD&D.



A first level 5e Wizard just isn't as mechanically limited (and thus easy to remember the rules to play one) as a first level TD&D Magic User was, but few wanted to play a 1st level Magic User back then!

In low level TSR D&D (in my increasingly dim memories) Mages were LAME! (Yes a clever player can make a drooling begger in say a game of Stormbringer interesting, yadda, yadda, yadda, bags of flour and flasks of oil, etc...), basically I remember my table as a conga-line of human Fighter PC's, with Clerics and especially Magic Users being mostly NPC's, and Thieves and Dwarves being a minority of PC's (I played an AD&D Half Orc Cleric/Fighter a bit, and there were a few Elves and Half-Elves, but I don't remember anyone actually playing a Gnome or Halfling at my tables).

Typical 5e PC's are way more diverse (though an all Elf/Half-Elf party seemed odd).

Anyway if one wants to make 5e WD&D feel more like Oe/1e D&D/AD&D (as I remember it) here's what to do:



1) Players don't assume every monster can be steamrolled and run into melee.

2) DM's use traps, and don't coddle the players with "speed bump" monsters.

3) Use the "gritty realism" options from the DMG.

4) Players may only use the classes and races in the on-line free "Basic rules".

5) XP is mostly from spending loot, not from "defeating challenges".

6) Slow "leveling up" way down.



So mostly subtraction rather than addition.

To go the other way, and make old TD&D into something more like WD&D, you'd add some options, take-away some limitations, start at a higher level, streamline some rules, all-in-all it would be more work.

I still like high-level TSR D&D better than high-level 5e, but as I get more used to 5e, what that level is that I like better in 5e gets higher.

[MxKit]

The Background mechanic does a really good job of mixing flavor with enough mechanics to dip into a side-role.

Yessss. My two favorite things about 5e right now are the Backgrounds and the lack of negative ability modifiers for 95% of the races. Runner up is how well the classes are balanced, so that every possible character has a chance to be effective in combat and at least one of the other pillars of the game; there's no real trap option or way to make a totally useless character by complete accident.

The Backgrounds were what grabbed me immediately, though. Right before 5e came out, I was looking into Beyond the Wall, and while I don't like it as much as D&D, I absolutely adore its... well, its character building minigame, as people have put it. It goes farther than 5e does, having each decision you make about your character's history contribute to their stats, skills, and starting equipment in some way (and for one decision on every character sheet, also contribute to the stats of one of the other characters in the party), but seeing that 5e D&D was now tying skills, languages, item proficiencies, starting equipment, and personality traits to characters' histories got me super excited, lol.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yessss. My two favorite things about 5e right now are the Backgrounds and the lack of negative ability modifiers for 95% of the races. Runner up is how well the classes are balanced, so that every possible character has a chance to be effective in combat and at least one of the other pillars of the game; there's no real trap option or way to make a totally useless character by complete accident.

The Backgrounds were what grabbed me immediately, though. Right before 5e came out, I was looking into Beyond the Wall, and while I don't like it as much as D&D, I absolutely adore its... well, its character building minigame, as people have put it. It goes farther than 5e does, having each decision you make about your character's history contribute to their stats, skills, and starting equipment in some way (and for one decision on every character sheet, also contribute to the stats of one of the other characters in the party), but seeing that 5e D&D was now tying skills, languages, item proficiencies, starting equipment, and personality traits to characters' histories got me super excited, lol.

I agree about backgrounds (plus the ideal/bond/flaw). It's a nice separation between who you are (personality, background, etc) and how you contribute as an adventurer (class) that makes it quite intuitive for new players (and old players). It reinforces that you can be a cleric who wasn't a temple brat, or a wizard who didn't go to wizard school, etc.

[strangebloke]

It's easy to run, and it's a pretty robust, flexible chassis that you can bend into whatever shape you want. Each of the classes has character, is customizable, and is balanced.

For example, it isn't trivial to kill PCs in 5e, but it isn't impossible, either.

I'm a pretty 'young' DM. I've only been playing for six years. Started playing in the latter days of 3x. In my latest 2 year 5e campaign, I killed/retired... seven PCs. Three of those deaths/retirements being one player who kept getting in fights with the rest of the party, three of them being tactical misteps by newbie players and one to RNG. Since ress spells other than revivify don't exist in my campaign, the party roster changed pretty rapidly. Only one character survived the whole thing beginning to end.

All I did to up the lethality/drama? I overtuned monster offensive CR and downplayed monster defensive CR, put the players under heavy time pressure, and made my monsters use tactics. Wasn't trying to kill everyone, I just wanted to up the stakes a little. 5e made it trivial to tune it towards what I wanted.

[MxKit]

I see this a lot, where you aren't supposed to do heavy RP political stuff in D&D (and admittedly, it doesn't have a lot of well thought out rules for it). But given I've never played a tabletop RPG where that's the focus... What rules are used in those games? I could see an argument where a more freeform game is better, but are there rules heavy/medium games for these king's court situations?

To be fair, there are actually games where that sort of thing is given equal focus to combat, or even far more focus. Several of the World of Darkness games let you make political- and intrigue-heavy games very easily; the various Vampire games and Changeling: the Lost are standouts for this, ime. Mostly that seems to be because the books explore how the political system in your games might work, and because 2/3 of the stats are heavily weighted towards out-of-combat interactions (WoD has Strength, Dexterity, Stamina, Charisma, Manipulation, Appearance, Intelligence, Perception, and Wits). There are also "styles" you can pick up as, basically, feat trees, and while there are a lot of fighting styles and some movement styles, there are also a few "debate styles" and a "social style." All sorts of interactions and other non-combat things really are treated like combat, with social resistances and social abilities to "attack" with.

For a similar sort of... interactions treated like combat game, Monster Hearts is ridiculous but actually apparently does this quite well. It's less political and more dramatic high-school-age social interactions, but I doubt it would be hard to adjust it some for a more political game using similar stats and rules for interactions.

The other game I'm aware of that is heavy on non-combat is Nobilis, and that's a whole other type of system entirely. Combat often takes the backburner and it's best to find other solutions for things specifically because all the PCs and most important NPCs are literally godmode levels of overpowered, which in practice makes it useless to try to "win" using your godmode powers because someone else can just counter or undo what you did with their godmode powers, and starting down that road might just literally destroy everything, so it's best to avoid it. There's a lot of using your powers instead to find out things, figure out lies, etc., and being clever to try to socially maneuver through situations without everything going to ****. It's a fun game.

Personally, I think it's not too hard to lift a lot of these things and adjust them slightly to do similar things in D&D, it's just that the D&D books don't really give you much info on how to approach it. Which is a shame. A DM who's familiar with some other systems has a good chance of being able to set something up for a D&D game that works, but a lot of DMs will probably have trouble. Homebrewing a few social or sneaky-related feats would help, but even just approaching things as, say, making a lot of Insight or Investigate or Persuasion or Deception checks during important court conversations, making them opposed checks to sort of simulate a "battle," would be a decent starting place. That's the sort of game where an Inquisitive Rogue would actually be a solid character choice. Most Bards, most Clerics, many Wizards, and the GOO Warlock would also do very well there.

[Fire Tarrasque]

It's a lot like 2nd AD&D, and except they've simplified it, but in a good way. It really like 2nd 2.0, more then 3.5 or (Too limited knowledge of everything else.) It took 3.5's absurd min/maxing, made it less extreme, took 4's massive customization options, took those down a notch, and took 2nd AD&D's role playing potential and... pretty much just took that.
I started out playing 2nd AD&D too, and 5th is much easier to wrap your head around.
Seriously, 2nd AD&D had way too many proficencies. 5th tones that absurdity down, though crafting things needs to be improved... a lot.

[mephnick]

Even something like Dogs in the Vineyard has kind of a weird poker resolution system that feels better for "social combat" since it's all about rooting out corruption in mysterious towns. Stakes are set, raised and turned. Narratives are formed around how the resolution system twists and turns. It sounds weird, but works very well for a mystery/political game. The mechanics of every system promote a certain style of gaming, regardless of how they're marketed. It's not that you can't play intrigue/mystery/horror/heist in D&D, it's just that the system either needs to be ignored or struggled against. It would be a much more interesting game to use a system designed for those things.

Some people level criticisms against D&D like "too much of the book is about combat" or it "encourages murderhobos" as if they think the game is designed to..be something else? People treat it like some universal system because it's the iconic TTRPG, but it is not generic at all. It is very specific about it's goals. Back of the PHB: "Explore ancient ruins and deadly dungeons. Battle monsters while searching for legendary treasures. Gain experience and power as you trek across uncharted lands with your companions." I don't see anything about opening up a shop and struggling against the political minefield of a trade guild. It gives social skills and some social background abilities because those things will probably come up at some point, and can be useful for gaining an advantage before or after setting out, but make no mistake what the focus of the system is and always has been: Exploring an adventure site and staying alive long enough to get some loot. This is why despite having "social" archetypes like PDK or Mastermind, all 5e characters are adept in combat. The base classes force you to be adept in combat. In older editions of D&D, once you got to the point of commanding armies from your castle and playing regional politics (~ level 10) the character was expected to be retired. You won! Start a new character. They only added higher levels because people wanted to fight angels or something. So even when Gygax et al finally said "Fine. Here's higher levels. You people are weird." it still wasn't about playing politics.

I'm not saying to never run political campaigns in D&D. I'm just saying it's not the focus of the system and you should really search out some very easy to learn, easy to play systems that will make your experience much more enjoyable.

[Ratter]

Well im looking to have open options. I dont like fixed classes or roles. Alternatives are a focus of mine in that type of system, like multiclassing.

In character design, I want to make anything I can think of and still be effective, not a joke with major drawbacks.



This is what 5e excels at, you can play almost any character viable and true optimization is unnecessary. With better multi-class, more homebrew, and generally being impossible to create a useless character, you can create most character concepts, the only problem is the lack of savage levels, so playing a mimic is unfortunately a no-go, you play basically any other thing you want. Peter Pan, the Genie from Aladdin, Harry Potter (If your DM is nice), etc.

[ad_hoc]

This is what 5e excels at, you can play almost any character viable and true optimization is unnecessary. With better multi-class, more homebrew, and generally being impossible to create a useless character, you can create most character concepts, the only problem is the lack of savage levels, so playing a mimic is unfortunately a no-go, you play basically any other thing you want. Peter Pan, the Genie from Aladdin, Harry Potter (If your DM is nice), etc.

The opposite is true. 5e succeeds at creating a party of strong fantasy archetypes. It is designed around it.

These can be diminished by using the optional multiclassing rules or houseruling/homebrewing things of course. I think if that is what you want then there are plenty of games out there that are better able to provide that experience.

[Ignimortis]

This is what 5e excels at, you can play almost any character viable and true optimization is unnecessary. With better multi-class, more homebrew, and generally being impossible to create a useless character, you can create most character concepts, the only problem is the lack of savage levels, so playing a mimic is unfortunately a no-go, you play basically any other thing you want. Peter Pan, the Genie from Aladdin, Harry Potter (If your DM is nice), etc.

I would second the post below yours. 5e is terrible at unusual concepts. It combines a restrictive system (classes by themselves) with a lack of content (there are very few basic classes and there aren't many coming out aside from homebrew, which can be an instant "no" for some DMs), and most class features are mechanically restricted to adhere to an archetype. 5e is very good at doing archetypical fantasy adventures. There's everything you could want for an adventure that you'd find in a classic fantasy book. The problem for some players is that there isn't anything more.

[UrielAwakened]

I can't even be a 4e Lazy Warlord in 5e.

lol @ the idea that 5e can do any character concept. It can't even do every D&D character concept.

[Scripten]

Awesome, because this thread is the one that needed resurrected.

[Willie the Duck]

Awesome, because this thread is the one that needed resurrected.

The necromancer joined the forum in December. Learning the unspoken rules takes longer (and the official rule is 45 days).


But you're right, I expect no new insights from this resurrection.

[Rhedyn]

There's everything you could want for an adventure that you'd find in a classic fantasy book. The problem for some players is that there isn't anything more. I disagree.

The lack of a skill system kind of kills 5e for me.

Honestly the skill system is so poorly done, it doesn't even feel like a real ttRPG to me. It feels more like the fake DnD people on the TV play for the one episode about DnD.

[Scripten]

The necromancer joined the forum in December. Learning the unspoken rules takes longer (and the official rule is 45 days).

But you're right, I expect no new insights from this resurrection.

It's the same as it's been for the past six pages: the same two-three people complaining about the exact same things over and over again without getting the hint.

@The usual suspects: Don't like 5E? Good for you. We get it. Go enjoy the entire rest of the TTRPG market. It's not that difficult and you'll be much happier.

[UrielAwakened]

It's the same as it's been for the past six pages: the same two-three people complaining about the exact same things over and over again without getting the hint.

@The usual suspects: Don't like 5E? Good for you. We get it. Go enjoy the entire rest of the TTRPG market. It's not that difficult and you'll be much happier.

Some of us are looking ahead to D&D 6e and want some of these things changed by then.

If the rest of us let the die hard 5e community believe their edition is perfect that'll never happen.

[Rhedyn]

Some of us are looking ahead to D&D 6e and want some of these things changed by then.

If the rest of us let the die hard 5e community believe their edition is perfect that'll never happen.
I'm just bored.

Also I could care less for 6e, which WotC says 5e is their last edition. So more than likely, a 6e would be by a different company with different devs (hopefully because I don't like these devs)

[JNAProductions]

Some of us are looking ahead to D&D 6e and want some of these things changed by then.

If the rest of us let the die hard 5e community believe their edition is perfect that'll never happen.

How many people have claimed 5E is perfect? I think it's better designed than 3E, for instance, but it's definitely not perfect.

[Scripten]

Some of us are looking ahead to D&D 6e and want some of these things changed by then.

If the rest of us let the die hard 5e community believe their edition is perfect that'll never happen.

How is harassing the 5E forum on this board going to accomplish that? You aren't changing minds. You're just showing that you can't stand people existing with different preferences.


I'm just bored.

Also I could care less for 6e, which WotC says 5e is their last edition. So more than likely, a 6e would be by a different company with different devs (hopefully because I don't like these devs)

So what, you're just here to troll?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Some of us are looking ahead to D&D 6e and want some of these things changed by then.

If the rest of us let the die hard 5e community believe their edition is perfect that'll never happen.
I mean, why though? You've admitted preference for different gaming systems that already exist, and I'm guessing that means you either own or have access to everything you'd need to play them. Why do you need some non-existent version that you'll have no real control over to fix a gaming system you aren't playing?

[ad_hoc]

I disagree.

The lack of a skill system kind of kills 5e for me.

Honestly the skill system is so poorly done, it doesn't even feel like a real ttRPG to me. It feels more like the fake DnD people on the TV play for the one episode about DnD.

The skill system is one of my favourite aspects of 5e. The game is just not for you. It is the game for most people who play ttRPGs though.


Some of us are looking ahead to D&D 6e and want some of these things changed by then.

If the rest of us let the die hard 5e community believe their edition is perfect that'll never happen.

Not likely to happen. November 2017 was 5e's best selling month. 3 1/2 years in it is gaining momentum in sales where previous editions lost traction after the base audience bought their core books.

Also, this board is an infinitesimal fraction of 5e players. Your comments have no influence on the game. As of early 2017 WotC estimated that over 9.5 million people were playing 5e.

[GlenSmash!]

The skill system is one of my favourite aspects of 5e.

Mine too.

The player states their character's goal and approach to a scenario, I decide if a check is necessary. If so I decide what type and set a DC and whether or not the roll has advantage or disadvantage.

It's simple and encourages players to leverage the character's story to come up with an approach that succeeds without a need for a role.

It encourages players to roleplay first and if necessary roll-play second.

[UrielAwakened]

I'm just bored.

Also I could care less for 6e, which WotC says 5e is their last edition. So more than likely, a 6e would be by a different company with different devs (hopefully because I don't like these devs)

Of all the things said in this topic, the notion that WotC will actually stop making new versions of D&D is the most hilarious to me by far.

As soon as profits start to dip we'll get a new edition.

[ad_hoc]

Of all the things said in this topic, the notion that WotC will actually stop making new versions of D&D is the most hilarious to me by far.

As soon as profits start to dip we'll get a new edition.

With a D&D movie in production and estimated to be released in 2021 we won't be getting a new edition as that will cause confusion and split the player base. And it is likely to draw in a lot of new people, esp. if it does well.

We're looking at 2024 for a new edition, and even then it will likely just be a refresh which is backwards compatible. More like a 5.1 than a new edition.

So we're actually looking at 2030 or so for a new edition of D&D. Even then it might not actually happen.

Of course it's possible for a new edition to come at any point, it's just highly unlikely to happen in the upcoming years.

[Rhedyn]

Mine too.

The player states their character's goal and approach to a scenario, I decide if a check is necessary. If so I decide what type and set a DC and whether or not the roll has advantage or disadvantage.

It's simple and encourages players to leverage the character's story to come up with an approach that succeeds without a need for a role.

It encourages players to roleplay first and if necessary roll-play second.

For me, it just means that they didn't write a skill system, which removes the "game" aspect from anything not combat/spells. You don't need rules for pure roleplay. You do need them for an RPG. Ergo 5e stops being an RPG outside of combat far more so than 4e ever did.

[GlenSmash!]

For me, it just means that they didn't write a skill system, which removes the "game" aspect from anything not combat/spells. You don't need rules for pure roleplay. You do need them for an RPG. Ergo 5e stops being an RPG outside of combat far more so than 4e ever did.

And you're perfectly fine thinking that, however I don't think it's "pure" roleplay.

Often enough I do call for checks, I do assign DCs, I do apply advantage or disadvantage. None of which are roleplay.

Edit: If I weren't using the dice At All, I would consider it pure roleplay.

[Rhedyn]

Often enough I do call for checks, I do assign DCs, I do apply advantage or disadvantage. None of which are roleplay.Nor did any of that come from the rules. You are writing the skill rules that you like. 5e didn't.

[ad_hoc]

Nor did any of that come from the rules. You are writing the skill rules that you like. 5e didn't.

By this definition combat is also completely arbitrary. The DM decides whether they succeed or fail.

The same with an adventure.

Example:

- We need the MacGuffin!
-- The PCs enter the dungeon of the MacGuffin
- As you enter the dungeon you find the MacGuffin. Your adventure was a success!

RPGs are not competitive activities. Everything in them is arbitrary. 3e was a failed attempt at reversing this.

5e has very well defined skill rules. You don't like them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. For me they are far better than the tedious treadmill of the 3e rules.

[Unoriginal]

Nor did any of that come from the rules.

Those are literally the rules.

[Rhedyn]

By this definition combat is also completely arbitrary. The DM decides whether they succeed or fail. No?

The DM places enemies and creates a situation for combat to occur. Everything after that is up to the rules, the dice, and player/DM decisions for PCs/NPCs.

Do you know what a game is?

[Rhedyn]

Those are literally the rules.

The rules tell you to make up a DC. They didn't give you a DC or anyway to determine what it should be.

The rules are worse than nonexistent. They do force a roll, then it is up to the DM to write 1/3rd of the game and its up to players to ask "mother may I" to find out what their characters can do.

[GlenSmash!]

The rules tell you to make up a DC.

Correct, so I do. I appear to be using the rules correctly.


They didn't give you a DC

Correct again.


or anyway to determine what it should be.

I feel the rules do:
Very easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very hard 25
Nearly impossible 30


The rules are worse than nonexistent. They do force a roll, then it is up to the DM to write 1/3rd of the game

It takes a few seconds to do this, if that. Like all things its harder at first. Easier when you get used to it.


and its up to players to ask "mother may I" to find out what their characters can do.

No. The players shouldn't ask the DM. They should state their goal and their approach and the DM determines if it is successful, fails, or uncertain.

The players know what they can do. They don't know what they can succeed at. Just like swinging a sword, the outcome may be uncertain.

[Rhedyn]

I feel the rules do:
Very easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very hard 25
Nearly impossible 30


I would have to strongly disagree. "Difficulty" is left up to the DM to guess at. An equivalent rule would be to say set the DC per the following

Papa Smurf 5
Smurfette 10
Hefty Smurf 15
Brainy Smurf 20
Grouchy Smurf 25
Clumsy Smurf 30

Assign the associating smurf to the task to determine the DC.

[Rhedyn]

No. The players shouldn't ask the DM. They should state their goal and their approach and the DM determines if it is successful, fails, or uncertain.

The players know what they can do. They don't know what they can succeed at. Just like swinging a sword, the outcome may be uncertain.
So you

1. Determine if they can do said action without a roll.

2. When uncertain, you ask for a roll.

3. You assign a difficulty to a roll that you were uncertain about

How does "very easy" or "impossible" ever get set as DCs if you only ask for rolls when the action is uncertain? You are applying depth and nuance to a system that lacks any of that.

[JNAProductions]

I would have to strongly disagree. "Difficulty" is left up to the DM to guess at. An equivalent rule would be to say set the DC per the following

Papa Smurf 5
Smurfette 10
Hefty Smurf 15
Brainy Smurf 20
Grouchy Smurf 25
Clumsy Smurf 30

Assign the associating smurf to the task to determine the DC.

So you interpret Smurfs as difficulty? I'll agree that the 5th edition skill system could be more fleshed out, primarily by giving more examples of what qualifies for what difficulty. But that's some pretty extreme hyperbole there.

[Rhedyn]

primarily by giving more examples of what qualifies for what difficulty. Exactly. "Difficulty" associated with a scalar, is pretty meaningless in a vacuum.

[Luccan]

So you interpret Smurfs as difficulty? I'll agree that the 5th edition skill system could be more fleshed out, primarily by giving more examples of what qualifies for what difficulty. But that's some pretty extreme hyperbole there.

The scale should be reworked somewhat. Obviously Clumsy is the hardest Smurf to be and Papa probably has it the easiest, in terms of his own skill and wisdom. Maybe just rework the middle of the scale? Actually, if we make it a scale of Smurf characters, Gargamel should have it the hardest.

[Sicarius Victis]

And now I just want a UA that gives detailed rules for Smurfs and how they can be used to determine the difficulty of skill checks.

[Beelzebubba]

When I was a kid our characters got "unfairly" retired all the time. Arms lost, brain dead, paralyzed, diseased, permanently blinded. Killed for failing a single roll. Whatever. We loved it! Now it seems as if PCs have gone from being a tool to have an adventure into some special imaginary friend and I'll literally die if I can't see his story to a satisfying conclusion. Back in my day you got eaten by wolves and excitedly rolled a new character hoping he wouldn't get eaten by wolves.

What's really funny is I am probably the same vintage (started with blue box Basic) and think this version is the best. It captures the basic feel of the version of AD&D we house-ruled ourselves into way back when, minus the racism and other clunky 70's relics.

And, there's plenty of risk in 5E. Our party almost had a TPK two sessions ago. Three of us were down, and only the order of initiative - and some clutch rolls - saved us. Our enemies were the type to finish off unconscious members, and we were one hit away from that happening with two foes.

But, here's the best thing - the DMG is literally filled with old school rules that let you replicate Grognardic D&D. Morale, gritty rest, lingering wounds, variant encumbrance, massive damage, more difficult magic item identification, slow natural healing, training to gain levels... it's all there. And it's all official - just optional. Fire up a Google Doc, link to the ones you use, BAM - your table is set.

[Ratter]

I would second the post below yours. 5e is terrible at unusual concepts. It combines a restrictive system (classes by themselves) with a lack of content (there are very few basic classes and there aren't many coming out aside from homebrew, which can be an instant "no" for some DMs), and most class features are mechanically restricted to adhere to an archetype. 5e is very good at doing archetypical fantasy adventures. There's everything you could want for an adventure that you'd find in a classic fantasy book. The problem for some players is that there isn't anything more.

I really dont understand... what Character Concept (tm)do you have?

[mephnick]

But, here's the best thing - the DMG is literally filled with old school rules that let you replicate Grognardic D&D. Morale, gritty rest, lingering wounds, variant encumbrance, massive damage, more difficult magic item identification, slow natural healing, training to gain levels... it's all there. And it's all official - just optional. Fire up a Google Doc, link to the ones you use, BAM - your table is set.

Oh I agree. I love 5e once I throw in all the grittier variants and bring back the odd monster ability I miss. I really really have to set the stage with newer gamers though to avoid anger and frustration. You can see the wheels start to turn once you get a few sessions in and they realize they have to like..actually figure out what to do with the horses or cart they hauled all their stuff in now that every character can't carry 1,000 pounds of equipment and gold, or whether they want to risk attuning to an unidentified item in the middle of a dungeon crawl. Everyone who dismisses those kinds of things say it's pointless boring book-keeping, but I've never actually seen it treated that way when it actually comes up in the game.

[Ignimortis]

I really dont understand... what Character Concept (tm)do you have?

Gunslingers are right out. A knight who froths at the mouth in battle and should by all means be a barbarian...except rage doesn't work in heavy armor. A warrior who uses teleportation both offensively and defensively (wasn't possible before Relentless Hex, going to try it out now, Hexblade is a very good archetype in general, still no defensive uses). Another warrior, who uses a polearm and has extreme mobility by jumping, even in heavy armor, kinda like Final Fantasy dragoons. That's just what I would want to play right now, I might come up with another five in the next month.

[Scripten]

Gunslingers are right out.

Firearms are in the DMG as an option for DMs who would like to allow them. It's not a class, but if you really wanted to use them and your DM allowed it, you could.


Another warrior, who uses a polearm and has extreme mobility by jumping, even in heavy armor, kinda like Final Fantasy dragoons.

An Eldritch Knight with the Jump spell would be possible by 3rd level. Heavy armor doesn't impede anything but Stealth checks. I don't see how this isn't possible even with base PHB?


A knight who froths at the mouth in battle and should by all means be a barbarian...except rage doesn't work in heavy armor.

This one is not possible, though. How would you attempt to balance the use of Heavy Armor with Rage?

EDIT: I just thought of one character archetype that isn't really represented: The throwing weapons specialist. While, like a Gunslinger, you can technically concentrate on using only the specific weapon type, it's notably one of the more difficult archetypes to make effective in their specified role.

[UrielAwakened]

With a D&D movie in production and estimated to be released in 2021 we won't be getting a new edition as that will cause confusion and split the player base. And it is likely to draw in a lot of new people, esp. if it does well.

We're looking at 2024 for a new edition, and even then it will likely just be a refresh which is backwards compatible. More like a 5.1 than a new edition.

So we're actually looking at 2030 or so for a new edition of D&D. Even then it might not actually happen.

Of course it's possible for a new edition to come at any point, it's just highly unlikely to happen in the upcoming years.

Nevermind the notion that a D&D movie will do well is NOW the most ridiculous thing said in this topic.

[Ignimortis]

Firearms are in the DMG as an option for DMs who would like to allow them. It's not a class, but if you really wanted to use them and your DM allowed it, you could.


That's the thing - if I really wanted X and the DM allowed it, I could play anything. That doesn't mean it's a commonly offered option.



An Eldritch Knight with the Jump spell would be possible by 3rd level. Heavy armor doesn't impede anything but Stealth checks. I don't see how this isn't possible even with base PHB?


Which is up for 2 minutes per day, increasing to 10 minutes...if you use your slots on Jump only. That's not a feature that is reliable and often available. Meanwhile, other editions and some other games allowed for constant use of those things (Leaping Dragon Stance, generally high skill at Acrobatics or equivalent, etc.). In short - it's possible, but it's not always up, even if you invest into it.



This one is not possible, though. How would you attempt to balance the use of Heavy Armor with Rage?


To be honest, I don't see any balance issues stemming from allowing all barbarian abilities to work in heavy armor. Half-plate is only 1 AC lower anyway (and same AC if you've 16 DEX and spend a feat, which is a bit much of an investment, but still), and cheaper than full plate, to boot.



EDIT: I just thought of one character archetype that isn't really represented: The throwing weapons specialist. While, like a Gunslinger, you can technically concentrate on using only the specific weapon type, it's notably one of the more difficult archetypes to make effective in their specified role.

Go monk, buy a hundred daggers, chuck them at the enemies for martial arts+DEX damage. Also kinda bad, but it's the only way 5e makes it almost work. Except that the daggers are nonmagical and you will probably run out quicker than an archer runs out of arrows, so not really feasible at levels where a hundred daggers are cheap enough.

[Scripten]

That's the thing - if I really wanted X and the DM allowed it, I could play anything. That doesn't mean it's a commonly offered option.

I mean, that's kind of the difference in opinion going on here. I feel like it's better to have an option in the DMG guide for thematically shakey options like guns. Not every DM wants them in their games, so opting in rather than opting out seems more reasonable to me personally.

Plus, if they do allow guns, they are more than just a little viable. :smallwink:



Which is up for 2 minutes per day, increasing to 10 minutes...if you use your slots on Jump only. That's not a feature that is reliable and often available. Meanwhile, other editions and some other games allowed for constant use of those things (Leaping Dragon Stance, generally high skill at Acrobatics or equivalent, etc.). In short - it's possible, but it's not always up, even if you invest into it.

Okay, fair, you only get to use those spell slots for 2-10 combats per adventuring day. But even so, it's pretty rare for DMs following the guidelines to exceed 6 or 7, so eventually you'll end up with some spare spell slots. Not many, and I agree that it's not optimal, but it is possible and viable.

Honestly, it seems like a pretty niche subclass concept. A cool one, for sure, but I can see why WotC haven't put anything out for it yet, considering the design paradigm for 5E seems to be keeping splat to a minimum as opposed to earlier editions. If that's not someone's preference, it's totally legitimate to prefer other gaming system.



To be honest, I don't see any balance issues stemming from allowing all barbarian abilities to work in heavy armor. Half-plate is only 1 AC lower anyway (and same AC if you've 16 DEX and spend a feat, which is a bit much of an investment, but still), and cheaper than full plate, to boot.


I dunno, I feel like the assumption that you've put 16 points into DEX and spent a feat is a pretty strong one, especially since it makes the build pretty MAD, since finesse weapons don't work with Rage either.



Go monk, buy a hundred daggers, chuck them at the enemies for martial arts+DEX damage. Also kinda bad, but it's the only way 5e makes it almost work. Except that the daggers are nonmagical and you will probably run out quicker than an archer runs out of arrows, so not really feasible at levels where a hundred daggers are cheap enough.

Yeah, it's possible but not really all that viable, which is where I personally draw the line between it being preference and a design flaw. (Granted, even then it's a subjective thing.) Fixes are all pretty easy, but it's still a homebrew requirement.

I should probably add that I don't think that 5E is a perfect game, but it does have a pretty wide range of character archetypes to choose from. Mechanically, there's enough room to fluff things to get some pretty unique and strange concepts. (Wild Magic Sorcerers who cast from a deck of cards and stuff like that.)

[GooeyChewie]

A knight who froths at the mouth in battle and should by all means be a barbarian...except rage doesn't work in heavy armor.

You can make a Fighter and role play that character as one who froths at the mouth in battle. You don’t have to get the mechanic benefit of Rage to play a character who charges headlong into battle. You can even write that tendency up as a flaw in your background.

[UrielAwakened]

You can make a Fighter and role play that character as one who froths at the mouth in battle. You don’t have to get the mechanic benefit of Rage to play a character who charges headlong into battle. You can even write that tendency up as a flaw in your background.

You can reflavor anything you want.

That doesn't mean the game facilitates it and a good game provides mechanical benefits to flavor.

You can say a crossbow is a pistol that deals the same damage and functions the same mechanically but that doesn't mean the game lets you be a gunslinger.

[Ignimortis]

You can make a Fighter and role play that character as one who froths at the mouth in battle. You don’t have to get the mechanic benefit of Rage to play a character who charges headlong into battle. You can even write that tendency up as a flaw in your background.

I knew someone was going to say that. And it's not an argument, because I do want to have a mechanical side to this character trait. Roleplaying has nothing to do with how well a system supports a concept. Otherwise we wouldn't need systems at all - just roleplay everything with words.

[CantigThimble]

If half plate is so reasonable compared to full-plate then what's wrong with a knight in half-plate? As far as I can tell, medium and heavy armors serve all the same roles in combat, it just depends what the user's preferred fighting style is.

[Willie the Duck]

Which is up for 2 minutes per day, increasing to 10 minutes...if you use your slots on Jump only. That's not a feature that is reliable and often available. Meanwhile, other editions and some other games allowed for constant use of those things (Leaping Dragon Stance, generally high skill at Acrobatics or equivalent, etc.). In short - it's possible, but it's not always up, even if you invest into it.

This is a very specific thing, with very specific requirement that you are putting upon it (how often it can be replicated). Conveniently for you, a very specific expansion of 3.5 allows you to do this one thing within those parameters. But 3.5 doesn't allow lots and lots of other things--just like Vampire: the Masquerade or Shadowrun or any other RPG with a vaguely class-esque architecture. Even the most modular LEGO-like RPGs like GURPS or HERO System have limitations--to build this leaping combatant, you can build a character with a high jump movement, and it will work as long as their END reserve lasts (or you can also buy a high REC and do so indefinitely, simply making it a more expensive ability)--but there's nothing tying it to the concept of polearm character who jumps a lot during combat.

What I'm saying is that this example is cherry picking a build that one can readily do in game X, but not in game Y, where all different games are going to have significant non-overlap in what builds are easy to do, and this is artificially conflating that 5e not having perfect overlap with 3e/PF is some special problem of 5e, which I do not feel it is.

[GlenSmash!]

I would have to strongly disagree. "Difficulty" is left up to the DM to guess at.

Yes! that's the best part. I use the approach described by the player to help determine the DC. Immutable DCs would fight against the core concept of this system IMHO.

The sample DCs work so well for me because I apply that scale to every scenario individually.


So you

1. Determine if they can do said action without a roll.

2. When uncertain, you ask for a roll.

3. You assign a difficulty to a roll that you were uncertain about

How does "very easy" or "impossible" ever get set as DCs if you only ask for rolls when the action is uncertain? You are applying depth and nuance to a system that lacks any of that.

An excellent point. Almost all checks I call for are indeed between 10 and 15 DC. I love the simplicity of that. Resolution of uncertainty is quick, and the game continues. Though I have used a higher DC on occasion. Other DMs may prefer to use the higher and lower DCs of course and are free to do so.


So you interpret Smurfs as difficulty? I'll agree that the 5th edition skill system could be more fleshed out, primarily by giving more examples of what qualifies for what difficulty. But that's some pretty extreme hyperbole there.

Xanathar's Guide does have examples of many DCs. The may be lepful to those that are looking for exactly this sort of thing.

I largely find I don't need them.

I take the approach the player states, decide if that makes the challenge easy, medium, hard, etc. and go from there. Looking up an example DC would slow my game down without really making the game more fun for anyone at my table.

Of course every table is different and preferences vary.

[Ignimortis]

This is a very specific thing, with very specific requirement that you are putting upon it (how often it can be replicated). Conveniently for you, a very specific expansion of 3.5 allows you to do this one thing within those parameters. But 3.5 doesn't allow lots and lots of other things--just like Vampire: the Masquerade or Shadowrun or any other RPG with a vaguely class-esque architecture. Even the most modular LEGO-like RPGs like GURPS or HERO System have limitations--to build this leaping combatant, you can build a character with a high jump movement, and it will work as long as their END reserve lasts (or you can also buy a high REC and do so indefinitely, simply making it a more expensive ability)--but there's nothing tying it to the concept of polearm character who jumps a lot during combat.

What I'm saying is that this example is cherry picking a build that one can readily do in game X, but not in game Y, where all different games are going to have significant non-overlap in what builds are easy to do, and this is artificially conflating that 5e not having perfect overlap with 3e/PF is some special problem of 5e, which I do not feel it is.

To be honest, I can make a similar thing in many games (VtM has the tools for it, even if it's quite impractical in the setting, same goes for Shadowrun, I've played both and considered this kind of build from a mechanical perspective).
Most of my dissatisfaction with 5e stems from precisely this - it either can't do what I want it to do, or it can...only it's not as powerful or as reliable as I want it to be. For instance, yes, I can make an arcane fencer in 5e...only it has to be an elf or it will have really bad casting. In short, 5e is too low-power and it doesn't give me enough tools to completely cover the concept I desire most of the time...unless, conveniently, I want to play something really common that corresponds to some archetype in the game both stylistically and power-wise.

[Willie the Duck]

To be honest, I can make a similar thing in many games (VtM has the tools for it, even if it's quite impractical in the setting, same goes for Shadowrun, I've played both and considered this kind of build from a mechanical perspective).
Most of my dissatisfaction with 5e stems from precisely this - it either can't do what I want it to do, or it can...only it's not as powerful or as reliable as I want it to be. For instance, yes, I can make an arcane fencer in 5e...only it has to be an elf or it will have really bad casting. In short, 5e is too low-power and it doesn't give me enough tools to completely cover the concept I desire most of the time...unless, conveniently, I want to play something really common that corresponds to some archetype in the game both stylistically and power-wise.

For this one specific build, is my point. I don't really want to go into specifics of other game systems in a D&D-specific thread, so my point is rather general. But there are plenty of builds you cannot do (or do well) in VtM. Same I'm sure with Shadowrun. What I am saying is that this is declaring this limitation to be a problem of 5e, rather than a general problem, and by doing so ignoring the instances in other games that are equally limiting.

[Ignimortis]

For this one specific build, is my point. I don't really want to go into specifics of other game systems in a D&D-specific thread, so my point is rather general. But there are plenty of builds you cannot do (or do well) in VtM. Same I'm sure with Shadowrun. What I am saying is that this is declaring this limitation to be a problem of 5e, rather than a general problem, and by doing so ignoring the instances in other games that are equally limiting.

Because, as a part of D&D series (or franchise?), 5e is extremely limiting, compared to 3.5/PF, in purely mechanical concept realization. The latter are also part of the same series, and I would expect that a new installment does not, as they say, throw out the baby with the bathwater - especially after 4e did this in their own, different way. Unless, of course, we don't consider that the actual model to be improved upon was 2e, then 5e is a mostly logical continuation, quite well adapted to modern standards.
Saying that the other games are equally limiting is rather imprecise - there are some limits in any system (otherwise it isn't a system), but the variance is absolutely, surely there. Some systems are more flexible, some are less. Some do things they set out to do well (5e included), others don't (VtM is actually mechanically pretty bad at its' premise, but quite good for, say, Vampions). I can find, in my quite limited imagination, ten fantasy-flavoured builds which 5e doesn't do well, because they're outside of its' presumed scope. That doesn't mean 5e is objectively bad. It just means that you have to play it with a specific goal, which should suit 5e, in mind, otherwise you're gonna be disappointed (as I certainly am after 2.5 years). That's what I've been saying for this whole thread - 5e is good at classic fantasy adventures. It's simple, it can be fun, and it does archetypical heroes and stories well.
It's just that 3.5/PF are good for so much more, and are (technically in case of PF) also D&D. With their own problems, no doubt about that, but they give you so much more tools. In short, any build from 5e can be probably replicated in PF, but the reverse isn't necessarily true.

[GooeyChewie]

You can reflavor anything you want.

That doesn't mean the game facilitates it and a good game provides mechanical benefits to flavor.

You can say a crossbow is a pistol that deals the same damage and functions the same mechanically but that doesn't mean the game lets you be a gunslinger.

No reflavor needed in this case. We are just applying a character trait (the tendency to charge into battle “frothing at the mouth”) to a perfectly viable 5e character. That’s not to say that 5e can (or even should) facilitate any character anybody could dream up, especially once you leave the pseudo-medieval fantasy setting. But 5e’s background features do provide a fairly wide latitude in terms of how your character behaves and why.


I knew someone was going to say that. And it's not an argument, because I do want to have a mechanical side to this character trait. Roleplaying has nothing to do with how well a system supports a concept. Otherwise we wouldn't need systems at all - just roleplay everything with words.

DMs are encouraged to give inspiration for good role playing. If you have a good DM and actually play into this character flaw, you can get a mechanical advantage. In terms of non-DM-adjudicated mechanical advantages, you have your choice: either Rage or heavy armor, but not both. And that’s a good thing, because characters who want the flavor of an unarmored combatant need some mechanical advantage to make up for the lack of armor. Otherwise you’d be here complaining that 5e doesn’t support a Hulk-like unarmored berserker.

[Rhedyn]

Because, as a part of D&D series (or franchise?), 5e is extremely limiting, compared to 3.5/PF, in purely mechanical concept realization. The latter are also part of the same series, and I would expect that a new installment does not, as they say, throw out the baby with the bathwater - especially after 4e did this in their own, different way. Unless, of course, we don't consider that the actual model to be improved upon was 2e, then 5e is a mostly logical continuation, quite well adapted to modern standards.
Saying that the other games are equally limiting is rather imprecise - there are some limits in any system (otherwise it isn't a system), but the variance is absolutely, surely there. Some systems are more flexible, some are less. Some do things they set out to do well (5e included), others don't (VtM is actually mechanically pretty bad at its' premise, but quite good for, say, Vampions). I can find, in my quite limited imagination, ten fantasy-flavoured builds which 5e doesn't do well, because they're outside of its' presumed scope. That doesn't mean 5e is objectively bad. It just means that you have to play it with a specific goal, which should suit 5e, in mind, otherwise you're gonna be disappointed (as I certainly am after 2.5 years). That's what I've been saying for this whole thread - 5e is good at classic fantasy adventures. It's simple, it can be fun, and it does archetypical heroes and stories well.
It's just that 3.5/PF are good for so much more, and are (technically in case of PF) also D&D. With their own problems, no doubt about that, but they give you so much more tools. In short, any build from 5e can be probably replicated in PF, but the reverse isn't necessarily true.

And then there are generic games like Savage Worlds and GURPS that cover just about everything.

Savage Worlds doesn't have nearly as much crunch as GURPS so anything outside of cinematic action movie concepts are stretching the mechanics. (Not that that isn't a ridiculously large genre, but still limiting to a degree)

Knight that rages? Berserk edge and Brawny Edge and d10 strength with loyalty and vow hindrances. (Maybe the Knight edge too)

The dragoon Lance jumper is harder. I would say that falls more under the Super Powers companion with a melee attack contingent on the jump power and the melee attack in dependent on a "Lance" device. Working it in a normal game probably requires the Super Powers core book background and trapping such things as martial prowess/jumping. And the Lance would need to be a spear with different trappings. With the No power point variant, you could do your thing all day but it may get disrupted in combat.

[Ignimortis]

No reflavor needed in this case. We are just applying a character trait (the tendency to charge into battle “frothing at the mouth”) to a perfectly viable 5e character. That’s not to say that 5e can (or even should) facilitate any character anybody could dream up, especially once you leave the pseudo-medieval fantasy setting. But 5e’s background features do provide a fairly wide latitude in terms of how your character behaves and why.

DMs are encouraged to give inspiration for good role playing. If you have a good DM and actually play into this character flaw, you can get a mechanical advantage. In terms of non-DM-adjudicated mechanical advantages, you have your choice: either Rage or heavy armor, but not both. And that’s a good thing, because characters who want the flavor of an unarmored combatant need some mechanical advantage to make up for the lack of armor. Otherwise you’d be here complaining that 5e doesn’t support a Hulk-like unarmored berserker.

Not exactly true, because Rage is completely separate from Unarmored Defense, which actually gives protection on the level of magical full plate if you invest in both CON and DEX (which is suboptimal, but possible). So there still would be support for it. And my 5e DM only gives inspiration for social roleplaying (I'm bad at that, since I'm unassertive and tend to get spoken over most of the time, even if I'm the only one with a high CHA mod and social skills in-game) or, rarely, extremely funny jokes, so I get it about twice per campaign and usually blow it on some sort of cool stunt (like counterspelling a counterspell of a counterspell of a Time Stop of a mage 15 levels higher. It's the highlight of the campaign for me so far). So...no dice.


And then there are generic games like Savage Worlds and GURPS that cover just about everything.

Savage Worlds doesn't have nearly as much crunch as GURPS so anything outside of cinematic action movie concepts are stretching the mechanics. (Not that that isn't a ridiculously large genre, but still limiting to a degree)

Knight that rages? Berserk edge and Brawny Edge and d10 strength with loyalty and vow hindrances. (Maybe the Knight edge too)

The dragoon Lance jumper is harder. I would say that falls more under the Super Powers companion with a melee attack contingent on the jump power and the melee attack in dependent on a "Lance" device. Working it in a normal game probably requires the Super Powers core book background and trapping such things as martial prowess/jumping. And the Lance would need to be a spear with different trappings. With the No power point variant, you could do your thing all day but it may get disrupted in combat.

Oh, yes. But finding a group for those is much harder in my experience, especially with a competent GM. I can ask some of my acquaintances to run D&D or VtM or Shadowrun - those are familiar and/or interesting to many due to in-built setting. SW or GURPS are...trickier in that they need a GM-defined setting. I guess I could really enjoy GURPS with its' character creation minigame, but all the people I know react to any suggestions to run something on GURPS with indifference ("too complex") at best and like they've seen a slug in their salad at worst. SW is either derided as "too rules-lite" or "not the right genre for what I want to run". Thanks for the suggestions, though :)

[Luccan]

-Snip-

It sounds like you want a classless system. The trouble, if you want to call it that, with class based RPGs it they usually aren't generic enough to fit every concept you could think of. The closest that comes to mind in D&D would be the 3.5 UA Generic Classes, which encouraged turning class abilities from normal classes into feats and offered the generic classes a bunch of bonus feats. D&D doesn't normally work that way though; it's a class based system and thus there are limitations to what mechanical effects work with other mechanical effects.

[alchahest]

so I've been playing since AD&D 2nd, though I went back to play earlier editions as well during that time. When 3.0 hit, I was ecstatic! some modern game design! then 3.5 was even better! then 4 hit, and it was weird, but good in different ways, and had even more modern thinking, and I had fun with that. Now 5 is the game I play, and I like it for different reasons than I liked previous editions, some things have gone backwards, but some have gone forwards. it's different, and importantly, it's fun to me.

It's entirely possible to think 5E is a good game, and that 5E is not a perfect game. it's entirely possible to think 5E is a good game, but so is 4E, for different reasons. it's entirely possible to hate all games that aren't BECMI. All this stuff is valid. someone's like or dislike of a thing isn't something you can argue them into or out of. Ultimately, that's why edition war threads are always bad. regardless of which side of an argument you sit on, if you're trying to tell someone to enjoy something they don't, or to not enjoy something they do, you're going to have a bad time, and feelings will be hurt (as much as both sides will claim otherwise, there's always a personal investment by the time it becomes an argument about opinions)

So just like, have fun. And if you like 5E, awesome! if you don't, also awesome! OP ostensibly (claims of edition warring and trolling aside for now) wants to know the benefits of 5E as we see them.

So here's what I like:

1: Less reliance on system mastery - you can have fun without having to squeeze out every last +1, it's far easier to run with a concept and contribute.
2: the advantage/disadvantage system. this is a little divisive, some people don't like it. but I do.
3: Classes. having built in subclasses, which is similar to the paragon path/epic destinies that 4E had, but with the ease of multiclassing that 3.x had.


those are my top three. there's a lot that I enjoy, and certainly some of it comes from the tables I play at rather than the rule set. I don't think 5E is perfect, but I do think it's a valid fun time for my friends and I.

[Rhedyn]

Not exactly true, because Rage is completely separate from Unarmored Defense, which actually gives protection on the level of magical full plate if you invest in both CON and DEX (which is suboptimal, but possible). So there still would be support for it. And my 5e DM only gives inspiration for social roleplaying (I'm bad at that, since I'm unassertive and tend to get spoken over most of the time, even if I'm the only one with a high CHA mod and social skills in-game) or, rarely, extremely funny jokes, so I get it about twice per campaign and usually blow it on some sort of cool stunt (like counterspelling a counterspell of a counterspell of a Time Stop of a mage 15 levels higher. It's the highlight of the campaign for me so far). So...no dice.



Oh, yes. But finding a group for those is much harder in my experience, especially with a competent GM. I can ask some of my acquaintances to run D&D or VtM or Shadowrun - those are familiar and/or interesting to many due to in-built setting. SW or GURPS are...trickier in that they need a GM-defined setting. I guess I could really enjoy GURPS with its' character creation minigame, but all the people I know react to any suggestions to run something on GURPS with indifference ("too complex") at best and like they've seen a slug in their salad at worst. SW is either derided as "too rules-lite" or "not the right genre for what I want to run". Thanks for the suggestions, though :)
Do what I did. Be the GM and then watch as the normal GMs start coming up with campaign ideas and then you get to play in those.

Also there is about 1900 products on drive through rpg. You can buy many setting books or grab free ones like saga of the goblin horde. The game has been out for 14 years lots of support out there. Bundle of Holding has a current deal for the Hellfrost (fantasy Norse) books.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also there is about 1900 products on drive through rpg. You can buy many setting books or grab free ones like saga of the goblin horde. The game has been out for 14 years lots of support out there. Bundle of Holding has a current deal for the Hellfrost (fantasy Norse) books. Full disclosure: what is your financial interest in that RPG?

[2D8HP]

I disagree.

The lack of a skill system kind of kills 5e for me....
:confused:

But unlike later games like Traveller and RuneQuest, skill systems aren't a part of D&D from the start, there an add-on, and not originally part of the game.

I like the system that 5e added to D&D, unlike other skill systems, non-specialists have a chance of success, and even specialists have a chance of failure (otherwise why roll?).


Some of us are looking ahead to D&D 6e and want some of these things changed by then.... .
I really hope not, as while I eagerly got as much D&D stuff as my I meager funds allowed at first (until Unearthed Arcana came out in '85), and then again with 3e, 3.5 and 4e coming out so soon afterwards really left a bad taste.

No more than one edition every 15 years please!


...If the rest of us let the die hard 5e community believe their edition is perfect that'll never happen..
"Perfect"?

No game is perfect.

"Good enough"?

"Fun"?

Yes, and it sure is nice that they're now other players of D&D again, instead of as it was in the dark days of the 1990's.


And now I just want a UA that gives detailed rules for Smurfs and how they can be used to determine the difficulty of skill checks..
That would be Smurferific!

:amused:


What's really funny is I am probably the same vintage (started with blue box Basic) and think this version is the best. It captures the basic feel of the version of AD&D we house-ruled ourselves into way back when.... .
I loved the "blue book (the box had more colors, see my Sig) as well.

:smile:


..And, there's plenty of risk in 5E. Our party almost had a TPK two sessions ago......
Same here, a good DM can bring the excitement back! .


...But, here's the best thing - the DMG is literally filled with old school rules that let you replicate Grognardic D&D. Morale, gritty rest, lingering wounds, variant encumbrance, massive damage, more difficult magic item identification, slow natural healing, training to gain levels... it's all there. And it's all official - just optional. Fire up a Google Doc, link to the ones you use, BAM - your table is set..
I don't know 'bout "Google Doc", but I find thr new DMG pretty cool, I like reading it more than the new PHB, even though I don't DM anymore.


Gunslingers are right out.....
Thank goodness!!

But they're still optional rules for guns.

:frown:


Because, as a part of D&D series (or franchise?), 5e is extremely limiting, compared to 3.5/PF, in purely mechanical concept realization.... .
True, but that also makes it easier to learn just enough to play and have fun.


...The latter are also part of the same series, and I would expect that a new installment does not, as they say, throw out the baby with the bathwater - especially after 4e did this in their own, different way. Unless, of course, we don't consider that the actual model to be improved upon was 2e, then 5e is a mostly logical continuation, quite well adapted to modern standards.
Saying that the other games are equally limiting is rather imprecise - there are some limits in any system (otherwise it isn't a system), but the variance is absolutely, surely there. Some systems are more flexible, some are less. Some do things they set out to do well (5e included), others don't (VtM is actually mechanically pretty bad at its' premise, but quite good for, say, Vampions). I can find, in my quite limited imagination, ten fantasy-flavoured builds which 5e doesn't do well, because they're outside of its' presumed scope. That doesn't mean 5e is objectively bad. It just means that you have to play it with a specific goal, which should suit 5e, in mind, otherwise you're gonna be disappointed (as I certainly am after 2.5 years). That's what I've been saying for this whole thread - 5e is good at classic fantasy adventures. It's simple, it can be fun, and it does archetypical heroes and stories well.
It's just that 3.5/PF are good for so much more, and are (technically in case of PF) also D&D. With their own problems, no doubt about that, but they give you so much more tools. In short, any build from 5e can be probably replicated in PF, but the reverse isn't necessarily true..
Well I don't know 2e or 4e (and have only read, not played 3e), I have fond memories of 0e and 1e, and as I understand it most 3e/3.5 players didn't like 4e WD&D, and Pathfinder now serves most of those players, so if WotC was going to sell D&D again, they'd either have to regain the players that Paizo now has, or they'd have to get new players (and maybe some of those who liked TD&D), I'm glad that they did as the did, and have grown the hobby.


And then there are generic games like Savage Worlds and GURPS that cover just about everything.....
I love the GURPS world books, and the Savage World's setting books, but I found making GURPS PC's too much work (same as the older HERO). I finally bought the SW "core rules" years after I first bought some SW setting books, and I haven't really looked at it, because they're just not that many opportunities to play, and my years of failing to get anyone to try Pendragon have soured me against being a "game evangelist".


...It's entirely possible to think 5E is a good game, and that 5E is not a perfect game. it's entirely possible to think 5E is a good game, but so is 4E, for different reasons. it's entirely possible to hate all games that aren't BECMI.....
I've enjoyed playing far too many other games for me to truthfully insist that there is "only one TRUE GAME", but it sure is fun to pretend there is!

Anyway, I much prefer print to PDF, but it sure is neat that we now can get the rules for so many games for free, if we can go on-line, even If TOO MANY PLAY THOSE GAMES INCORRECTLY INSTEAD I F THE RIGHT WAY WHICH BY SHEER COINCIDENCE IS HOW I THINK THEY SHOULD BE PLAYED!!!

[Rhedyn]

Full disclosure: what is your financial interest in that RPG?
They are not a publicly traded company, I checked.

I've not jumped on any Kickstarter bandwagon, yet.

[Ratter]

Gunslingers are right out. ... um... duh? This is a fantasy game, you also cant play an alien who pilots a spaceship, guns dont exist, that like complaining about the severe lack of cars, but if you REALLY want a gun-esque weapon wielding man then go var human, rogue, take the crossbow expert feat, and you get to sling your crossbow like a badass, at this point get the assassin archetype or arcane trickster, if you get arcane trickster, use your familiar to give you sneak attack on your shots, now you are a badass crossbow slinger
Another warrior, who uses a polearm and has extreme mobility by jumping, even in heavy armor, kinda like Final Fantasy dragoons..fighter, multiclass wizard for 1 level, take the jump spell, before you get into combat, cast it on yourself, there we go. If you hate multiclassing, take eldritch knight, take jump or levitate or fly, AND BOOM! Dragoon.

[Luccan]

AND BOOM! Dragoon.

Dragoon is a weird one to pick anyway, I feel. Has D&D (or its derivatives) really ever supported that archetype? I mean, I know in 3.X/PF you could probably do it, but it wasn't the sort of character the system was built around.

What I'm saying is, yeah there are things you can't do or build easily, but to a certain degree that's intentional. This is D&D, it's not a generic enough RPG system to support literally all character concepts, even some that might fit the general concept of "fantasy".

[Ratter]

No reflavor needed in this case. We are just applying a character trait (the tendency to charge into battle “frothing at the mouth”) to a perfectly viable 5e character.


Ok I figured it out, eldritch knight 3/barbarian whatever, cast mage armor on yourself, this appears as armor however according to WOTC spell rulings, kills unarmored defense, HOWEVER, they mention nothing about it affecting rage, so there we go, done

[Knaight]

Offer to run your existing group through some one-shots.
I can confirm that this is a good method.


... um... duh? This is a fantasy game, you also cant play an alien who pilots a spaceship, guns dont exist, that like complaining about the severe lack of cars

Yeah, because there's never been guns in a fantasy setting before. I mean, besides multiple iterations of the dwarven rifleman concept, the bulk of the urban fantasy genre, the idea of technologically advanced tinker characters, or more historical pieces based around eras of history (e.g. the late medieval period) which involved lots of firearms.

[JNAProductions]

Ok I figured it out, eldritch knight 3/barbarian whatever, cast mage armor on yourself, this appears as armor however according to WOTC spell rulings, kills unarmored defense, HOWEVER, they mention nothing about it affecting rage, so there we go, done

You know you can wear Medium or lighter armor and rage just fine, right?

[Luccan]

Yeah, because there's never been guns in a fantasy setting before. I mean, besides multiple iterations of the dwarven rifleman concept, the bulk of the urban fantasy genre, the idea of technologically advanced tinker characters, or more historical pieces based around eras of history (e.g. the late medieval period) which involved lots of firearms.

Does that mean D&D needs to include the option, though? It isn't as if D&D's expectations tend to follow any of those and there are options for guns, as others have said. They're just, you know, optional. Which is also probably why there is no Gunslinger, either as a class or subclass. Creating optional content that can't be seamlessly brought into most games doesn't seem to be how they're handling 5e right now. I don't even think there's been a UA article about potential urban fantasy games for about a year or so.

The closest D&D has come to urban fantasy or late-medieval was d20 Modern and Past.

[Knaight]

Does that mean D&D needs to include the option, though? It isn't as if D&D's expectations tend to follow any of those and there are options for guns, as others have said.

I have no particular opinion one way or the other on the inclusion of guns in D&D. My objection is entirely to the "duh, it's fantasy, of course there aren't guns" approach.

[Ratter]

you know you can wear medium or lighter armor and rage just fine, right?

then why was this a discussion?????????????????????!?!!??!?!?!?!?

[Willie the Duck]

then why was this a discussion?????????????????????!?!!??!?!?!?!?

Because one cannot mechanically create a character that combines the rage class feature and the wearing of heavy armor, and to at least one person in the multiverse, that is a problem. And it proves... not sure. I guess that other systems are in fact more varied in what they allow, which was never in dispute. 5e has been very clear, forward, and upfront that they are constraining things (combos and releases) to control the bloat and optimization mini-game that a significant portion of the gamer base had complained about. That's why this thread has felt so dizzying--it's 100% circular.

[Rhedyn]

Shouldn't a rules light version like 5e have more options not less?

Maybe 5e isn't actually rules light and just lacks content (see nonexistent skill rules)?

[Whoracle]

Shouldn't a rules light version like 5e have more options not less?

Maybe 5e isn't actually rules light and just lacks content (see nonexistent skill rules)?

Content != Rules.

A rules light game obviously doesn't have a lot of rules. That means that for all things it doesn't include you'll have to homebrew, preferably orienting yourself along the given rules.

[Unoriginal]

That's why this thread has felt so dizzying--it's 100% circular.

Doesn't help when some people states things that can be proved wrong by just glancing at the books as if they were facts.

[UrielAwakened]

Shouldn't a rules light version like 5e have more options not less?

Maybe 5e isn't actually rules light and just lacks content (see nonexistent skill rules)?

This is actually what's happening in 5e. They call it "rules light" because the reality is they're bad at game development.

[GooeyChewie]

Dragoon is a weird one to pick anyway, I feel. Has D&D (or its derivatives) really ever supported that archetype? I mean, I know in 3.X/PF you could probably do it, but it wasn't the sort of character the system was built around.

I concur. Dragoons, in the “lancer who jumps at enemies” sense (as opposed to the historical mounted infantry or cavalry units) seems pretty unique to the Final Fantasy series.

[Willie the Duck]

Shouldn't a rules light version like 5e have more options not less?

First and foremost, why? Completely without disputing the veracity of that, why? Exactly what design principle (either in terms of 'it is a good thing to do' or in terms of 'this is what tends to happen') suggest to you that rules light coincides with higher option total? OD&D is pretty rules-light, and it had 3 classes, 4 races, and a heck of a lot of excluded builds (or excluded good builds, as you could easily build a lightly armored rapier-fencer or the like, but you would never be able to compete). B/X is usually considered the most rules-light D&D, and there's no option for a heavily armored rager (with mechanics behind rage) or jumping dragoon (except as fluff), etc. I do not see where the logic that rules light --> greatest option is an expectation that anyone else has.


Maybe 5e isn't actually rules light and just lacks content (see nonexistent skill rules)?

I will never stop being dismayed by people who keep saying that 5e has nonexistent skill rules. That is truly crummy behavior and I consider it childish and immature. 5e has a skill set that is deliberately vague, which is not the same thing. Deliberately because it is a reaction to the perceived truly horribleness of the 3e/PF well-defined-but-awful skill that people have conveniently forgotten that they were constantly complaining about right up until 5e came out and went in the other direction. Regardless, the vagueness is a deliberate decision, a decision that one can like, dislike, complain about or laud, but to pretend that it is in fact nonexistent is just amazingly childish.

But to answer the point. Everything we are talking about is in fact examples of lack of content. There doesn't happen to be a (example at hand) combination that uses heavy armor and rage class feature. Well, there wasn't an example of anything like that in PF or 3e until the right expansions came out. The always available Jumping Dragoon abilities? Ho-boy did 3e not have that until ToB (again, a content expansion). Gunslinger? Well, there are gun rules in the book. So we're just waiting for a gunslinger archetype. Which undoubtedly exists in the DMSGuild content or wherever. 5e is leaning on 3rd party content to carry the water for niche demands, which you can like or dislike, but it is just content.

D&D is a combination of exception-based rules and opt-in based rules. Most situations where one says, '5e doesn't allow ____' it is tantamount to saying, '5e does not yet have a published build which allows _____, and might not any time acceptable to me, given their release schedule.'

[Aett_Thorn]

When it comes down to it, 5e has one rule: It's up to the DM.

Now sure, the PHB, DMG, and all of the other books give certain suggested and 'standard' rules to follow (especially for AL), but at home tables, basically anything can be changed by the DM to fit their concept. Need/want an option? Make it and have your DM approve. Table doesn't like certain rules restrictions? DM can negate them. Want to do something not explicitly covered by the rules? DM can make up how it works. And this is exactly what the books tell you to do.

[Rhedyn]

Content != Rules.

A rules light game obviously doesn't have a lot of rules. That means that for all things it doesn't include you'll have to homebrew, preferably orienting yourself along the given rules.
Or it has rules that encourage re-flavoring and being flexible in what the mechanics thematically represent.

Good rules light games cover more concepts than rules heavy games because the few rules they do have can be generally applied.

I don't think 5e falls into this category. What 5e does cover is pretty rules heavy. What it doesn't cover at all (skills) appears rules light, but really they just didn't write those rules and the cracks in the system highlight that fact if you ever bother to notice the flaws in the game.

5e isn't a masterfully crafted simplified D&D. It's a stripped down version of previous editions that does a good job marketing the concept of 'rule 0' as a way to fix all the things they broke when they took out the support structure from the mechanics they did leave in the game.

[strangebloke]

Deliberately because it is a reaction to the perceived truly horribleness of the 3e/PF well-defined-but-awful skill that people have conveniently forgotten that they were constantly complaining about right up until 5e came out and went in the other direction.'

Minor quibble:

I doubt that people complaining about 3.5's skill system are the same people now complaining about 5e's. If anything, the overwhelming success of 5e indicates that the people crying sour grapes are in the extreme minority. There are nearly ten million current 5e players.

More to the point, it's kind of dumb. Pathfinder is still out there, still popular, and still supported. There is no reason to come onto 5e forums and gripe about it.

But 'tis a very silly complaint in any case. There are systems based around skills entirely that have lighter rules than 5e, like fate, etc. The current skill system is completely sufficient for the limited amount of social doggery that D&D assumes. I have said that I would like them to collect all of the DMG's suggested skill DCs into one place instead of scattering it to the four winds, but... eh.

[Knaight]

Or it has rules that encourage re-flavoring and being flexible in what the mechanics thematically represent.

Good rules light games cover more concepts than rules heavy games because the few rules they do have can be generally applied.

There are a lot of very focused rules light games where this doesn't apply.

[Rhedyn]

There are a lot of very focused rules light games where this doesn't apply.

Hmm perhaps instead of "good rules light" I mean "good rules light RPGs that are meant for long campaigns and whose primary means of engaging players is allowing them to play character concepts in a variety of settings"

[Willie the Duck]

Or it has rules that encourage re-flavoring and being flexible in what the mechanics thematically represent.

Good rules light games cover more concepts than rules heavy games because the few rules they do have can be generally applied.

I would say that I don't think that that is either a defining feature of rules light games, nor something that is universally agreed to be a goal of rules light games, merely something that you have noticed about the rules light games you are thinking of. ACKS and Beyond the Wall, as examples, are pretty much invested in specific directions and either don't encourage travel outside those boundaries, or at least are no better than anything else (5e included, in that you can make up stuff for either just as easily).


What it doesn't cover at all (skills) appears rules light, but really they just didn't write those rules and the cracks in the system highlight that fact if you ever bother to notice the flaws in the game.

1) We get it, you want to frame the 5e skill system as nonexistent rather than deliberately vague. I've made clear what I think of that. 2) We are all aware of, and have bothered to notice, the qualities of the game you are referencing. We just disagree on whether they are flaws or decisions. As strangebloke puts it, you're just 'com[ing] onto 5e forums and gripe about it.' You have chosen a strategy of rhetoric which almost inherently limits your capacity to change anyone's mind.


5e isn't a masterfully crafted simplified D&D. It's a stripped down version of previous editions that does a good job marketing the concept of 'rule 0' as a way to fix all the things they broke when they took out the support structure from the mechanics they did leave in the game.

And that's simply where we disagree. I've seen, amongst non-skills-as-completely-dominant-rule-mechanism (such as RQ, GURPS, or HERO) two types of skill systems--specific and bad, or vague and as good as your GM makes it. 5e has chosen, based on market research and listening to their customers, to decide on one of those two directions. You don't like that. That's fine. They were going to leave one group or another disappointed. If the OP had formed this thread honestly, and titled it "I just want to vent my displeasure about 5e, because I don't like the design choices they made," I'd even call it a laudable form of venting. This is not that.

[CantigThimble]

Hmm perhaps instead of "good rules light" I mean "good rules light RPGs that are meant for long campaigns and whose primary means of engaging players is allowing them to play character concepts in a variety of settings"

Well, I don't think D&D is actually designed for a variety of settings. It's designed for a pretty limited subset of settings. Granted, a variety of settings have appeared due to the popularity of D&D (Eberron, Spelljammer etc.) that are specifically designed for it but ultimately it's designed for medival fantasy with medium-to-high pseudo-vancian magic. If you want to take it outide of that you need to start homebrewing.

[Rhedyn]

Well, I don't think D&D is actually designed for a variety of settings. It's designed for a pretty limited subset of settings. Granted, a variety of settings have appeared due to the popularity of D&D (Eberron, Spelljammer etc.) that are specifically designed for it but ultimately it's designed for medival fantasy with medium-to-high pseudo-vancian magic. If you want to take it outide of that you need to start homebrewing.
Right but 5e doesn't even cover those concepts very well.

As in for those who like the game, outside of stereotypical D&D concepts and D&D story lines/pacing, what you can actually play well in 5e, is pretty limited.

[Rhedyn]

I would say that I don't think that that is either a defining feature of rules light games, nor something that is universally agreed to be a goal of rules light games, merely something that you have noticed about the rules light games you are thinking of. ACKS and Beyond the Wall, as examples, are pretty much invested in specific directions and either don't encourage travel outside those boundaries, or at least are no better than anything else (5e included, in that you can make up stuff for either just as easily).



1) We get it, you want to frame the 5e skill system as nonexistent rather than deliberately vague. I've made clear what I think of that. 2) We are all aware of, and have bothered to notice, the qualities of the game you are referencing. We just disagree on whether they are flaws or decisions. As strangebloke puts it, you're just 'com[ing] onto 5e forums and gripe about it.' You have chosen a strategy of rhetoric which almost inherently limits your capacity to change anyone's mind.



And that's simply where we disagree. I've seen, amongst non-skills-as-completely-dominant-rule-mechanism (such as RQ, GURPS, or HERO) two types of skill systems--specific and bad, or vague and as good as your GM makes it. 5e has chosen, based on market research and listening to their customers, to decide on one of those two directions. You don't like that. That's fine. They were going to leave one group or another disappointed. If the OP had formed this thread honestly, and titled it "I just want to vent my displeasure about 5e, because I don't like the design choices they made," I'd even call it a laudable form of venting. This is not that.
The skill system is non-existent.

Some people just prefer rolling a d20 and having crazy shenanigans happen according to the DM's whims.

That isn't a skill system, it's just making what a lot of tables did the "right way".

[CantigThimble]

Right but 5e doesn't even cover those concepts very well.

As in for those who like the game, outside of stereotypical D&D concepts and D&D story lines/pacing, what you can actually play well in 5e, is pretty limited.

Fair enough, but there's enough flexibility within what D&D can do that lots of people enjoy it regardless. D&D's selling point is not conceptual freedom, it's adventuring parties going on adventures.

[Aelyn]

The skill system is non-existent.

Some people just prefer rolling a d20 and having crazy shenanigans happen according to the DM's whims.

That isn't a skill system, it's just making what a lot of tables did the "right way".

Good thing that 5e has a defined skill system where both your natural talent (stats) and your experiences (skill proficiencies) determine how well you do, along with unusual circumstances (advantage / disadvantage) and of course an element of chance (the dice), which is then compared to a threshold defined by the gamesmaster based on how difficult the task is.

You may think the skill system is vague, imprecise, or flat-out bad, and that's fine. But to say it's nonexistent is demonstrably false.

[Rhedyn]

Fair enough, but there's enough flexibility within what D&D can do that lots of people enjoy it regardless. D&D's selling point is not conceptual freedom, it's adventuring parties going on adventures.

Well that's true enough. For the people that like it and what it was designed for, 5e is great.

More of a tautology than a selling point though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well that's true enough. For the people that like it and what it was designed for, 5e is great.

More of a tautology than a selling point though.

No, being effective at what it's designed to do is one definition of well designed. Focus =/= bad, broad =/= good. And 5e is probably the most flexible system of all of the modern editions. Extending 5e things is simple and easy, and unlikely to break as long as you follow some basic principles. Extending 3e in a non-broken way was essentially impossible--too many interacting parts. Extending 4e was strongly limited due to its nature. None of them did well once you got outside the "heroic people doing heroic adventures" genre. 4e and 5e were just more honest about their intentions than the "do everything with one system!" hubris of 3e.

[Temperjoke]

"I can't do <insert character concept or idea here> in 5e, therefore 5e should be tossed out."

"5e is so vague on rules, I like having every possible option and decision already being decided on so I don't have to think."

"5e has too many rules, why can't I do what I want in my own game!"

Admittedly, I haven't read every single page, but I think I summed up the gist of the grievances aired here. I think by this point if you don't want to play 5e, coming here and asking us to convince you (meaning argue against you) is kinda pointless. And it's just as pointless as several people who repeatedly come onto these threads to bash 5e.

If you don't like 5e, go play something else. Knock off the flaunting that you don't like 5e, like it's some sort of badge of honor.

[KorvinStarmast]

"I can't do <insert character concept or idea here> in 5e, therefore 5e should be tossed out."

"5e is so vague on rules, I like having every possible option and decision already being decided on so I don't have to think."

"5e has too many rules, why can't I do what I want in my own game!" The never ending complaints against the "skill system" reflect a video game era control freak attitude. This is an interesting thing to watch, since the core game conceit (now, and in pre d20 systems as well) is that 'each time you try that it might or might not work' on anything that calls for a die roll.
Some people just can't handle that loss of control.
As a side bar to that, both the combat system and the skill system put a burden on some DM's (those who are weak at improvising and making decisions) regarding the assessment of a situation and deciding on "advantage" or "disadvantage" depending on the situation. While the cleaning up of plusses and minuses is a good thing, for keeping play progressing, it takes a little bit of "feel" to develop a sense of where to apply the situational (versus mechanical from spells and skills and abilities) advantage. You learn by doing.
At a table with a set of healthy interpersonal relationships, this doesn't matter. We are in this together, players and DM.
At a table with less healthy relationships, it can lead to bickering. That can be a DM problem, a player problem, or both, but in no case is it a game problem. If you expect a box of rules to answer all cases, I point you to our legal system where with volumes and volumes of rules it still leads to doubt, debate, and very expensive bickering.

5e is fit for purpose. It does what it intends to do very well.

[Rhedyn]

Good thing that 5e has a defined skill system where both your natural talent (stats) and your experiences (skill proficiencies) determine how well you do, along with unusual circumstances (advantage / disadvantage), which is then compared to a threshold defined by the gamesmaster based on how difficult the task is.

You may think the skill system is vague, imprecise, or flat-out bad, and that's fine. But to say it's nonexistent is demonstrably false.
Rules defining what you add to a roll mean nothing when there is no target number.

Rules that tell a DM to make up the target number based on gut feelings has no intrinsic difference from the DM just making up what the roll does.

What you see as skill rules is just an elaborate illusion where "rule 0" is restated.

[CantigThimble]

Well that's true enough. For the people that like it and what it was designed for, 5e is great.

More of a tautology than a selling point though.

I'm not trying to sell D&D to people who don't like what it was designed for, that would just be a waste of time. I'm trying to make it as clear as possible what D&D does well so that people can decide for themselves if D&D matches their tastes.

If it doesn't match someone's tastes then I'm not going to sell D&D to them. In fact, I'll encourage them not to play D&D. They should go play something else, they'll have more fun that way.

[Rhedyn]

I'm not trying to sell D&D to people who don't like what it was designed for, that would just be a waste of time. I'm trying to make it as clear as possible what D&D does well so that people can decide for themselves if D&D matches their tastes.

If it doesn't match someone's tastes then I'm not going to sell D&D to them. In fact, I'll encourage them not to play D&D. They should go play something else, they'll have more fun that way.
Well I disagree that 5e even does D&D well. My dislike doesn't stem from wanting to do something other than what 5e was designed for.

I disagree that it's just a matter of taste either. Yes, some people will like this game worts and all, but many of the responders here are in the "denial phase" of their relationship with 5e's flaws.

[CantigThimble]

Well I disagree that 5e even does D&D well. My dislike doesn't stem from wanting to do something other than what 5e was designed for.

I disagree that it's just a matter of taste either. Yes, some people will like this game worts and all, but many of the responders here are in the "denial phase" of their relationship with 5e's flaws.

Most of your complaints have been about what 5e doesn't do at all rather than doing what it does badly, so you can see why people would think that.

And declaring that other people are "in the denial phase" is a really effective way to turn a potentially useful discussion into a pointless quagmire of an argument.

[Aelyn]

Rules defining what you add to a roll mean nothing when there is no target number.

Rules that tell a DM to make up the target number based on gut feelings has no intrinsic difference from the DM just making up what the roll does.

What you see as skill rules is just an elaborate illusion where "rule 0" is restated.
I see the problem here. I know that the DMG index lists "skills" on p. 239, but DCs are on p. 238. And they don't say anything about gut feelings, only that it's the DM's responsibility to define them when the rules or the adventure doesn't do that for you.

If your complaint is that the rules don't give specific values for certain types of check, then you are saying that the rules are vague or imprecise - and I accept that the DMG doesn't help to define DCs that much when designing the adventure. Still, that's not the same as nonexistent.

[Unoriginal]

And declaring that other people are "in the denial phase" is a really effective way to turn a potentially useful discussion into a pointless quagmire of an argument.

That's pretty much the goal.

[Rhedyn]

I see the problem here. I know that the DMG index lists "skills" on p. 239, but DCs are on p. 238. And they don't say anything about gut feelings, only that it's the DM's responsibility to define them when the rules or the adventure doesn't do that for you.

If your complaint is that the rules don't give specific values for certain types of check, then you are saying that the rules are vague or imprecise - and I accept that the DMG doesn't help to define DCs that much when designing the adventure. Still, that's not the same as nonexistent.
The skill rules can be summarized as "DM writes this section".

If anything, 5e only overcomplicated the end result of what their effectively non-existent still system does.

The players are given enough 'rules' that they can trick themselves into thinking a skill system does exist. The back end on the DM's side makes it pretty clear that all the nonsense of players rolling a d20, adding a stat, selecting skills, and applying proficiencies was a pointless endeavor. The DM is given 6 categories to place the DC, but they are not defined. They are labeled with the word "difficulty" but difficulty is never actually explained in game terms. Some DMs trick themselves in thinking that these are rules for setting DCs when they clearly aren't.

The end result is an overly complicated farce where the DM essentially writes the skill rules.

[Kane0]

Well, good thing we can compare:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/skillsSummary.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm
It seems like what 5e is missing most is examples for certain DCs, which I believe has been pointed out and worked on by playgrounders and others already.

[Rhedyn]

Well, good thing we can compare:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/skillsSummary.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm
It seems like what 5e is missing most is examples for certain DCs, which I believe has been pointed out and worked on by playgrounders and others already.
"5e is only missing content that would make rolling the skill have any meaning"

Not just DCs, 5e lacks mods. A Climber's kit doesn't even give you advantage, it just makes falling less bad. It also indicates that you should be rolling to climb every round on a surface where you would use a climber's kit. But with the way math works, any non Bard/rogue Climber will fall a few times every "Medium" climb.

What a stupid mental picture.

[Kane0]

If you have a climbers kit with plenty of time on a climb thats isnt that hard, why are you even rolling?

Also the DM can choose to change the DC or grant advantage based on circumstances, thats where the mods went. That might be out of your control as a player, but the same happens in every edition.

[Scripten]

They are labeled with the word "difficulty" but difficulty is never actually explained in game terms. Some DMs trick themselves in thinking that these are rules for setting DCs when they clearly aren't.


And some posters on this forum trick themselves into thinking that an expectation of basic determination skills is so far beyond the pale that they will bellyache and harass the 5E forums about it for nearly ten pages per thread, even jumping across multiple threads. But no, obviously everyone else is wrong and you are right. There's no way that 5E could be enjoyable for other people. In fact, it's not even really a complete game. Everyone here is just delusional and are wrong about their own preferences.

[Aelyn]

The skill rules can be summarized as "DM writes this section".

If anything, 5e only overcomplicated the end result of what their effectively non-existent still system does.

The players are given enough 'rules' that they can trick themselves into thinking a skill system does exist. There back end on the DM's side makes it pretty clear that all the nonsense if players rolling a d20, adding a stat, selecting skills, and applying proficiencies was a pointless endeavor. The DM is given 6 categories to place the DC, but they are not defined. They are labeled with the word "difficulty" but difficulty is never actually explained in game terms. Some DMs trick themselves in thinking that these are rules for setting DCs when they clearly aren't.

The end result is an overly complicated farce where the DM essentially writes the skill rules.
So now it's "effectively" non-existent? And your complaint is that as a DM, where you aren't given a DC for a specific task, you have to determine it yourself using vague guidelines?

By the way, there are several examples of DCs being given in the DMG, PHB and MM. Not a huge number, but they are there (examples: landing a difficult jump - DC10 Acrobatics, stabilising a dying character: DC10 Medicine, foraging where food and water is abundant: DC10 Survival, foraging where there's very little food or water sources: DC20 Survival, detecting a rolling sphere trap: DC15 Perception). And then there's anything set in an adventure, are contests of course.

Again, I'm not saying it's good (I actually think it's fine but not great), I'm just pointing out that saying it's non-existent is straight-up false.

[Rhedyn]

If you have a climbers kit with plenty of time on a climb thats isnt that hard, why are you even rolling?
Every grievance with the "skill system" is solved by just not using the skill system.