3.5 to 5

[Tyg3rW01f]

Okay... looking at the possibility of going from the edition I have played for a decade (3.5e) to maybe moving to 5e...

Thoughts?
Is 5e REALLY D&D or is it just a "band-aid" for the edition that doesn't exist unless you're a brain-dead WoW addict or a quasi-quantic reality theorist? (I really should not have to be able to solve http://sites.psu.edu/thebigbangtheory/wp-content/uploads/sites/1331/2012/09/e-mu.png in order to take five-foot step.)

[ad_hoc]

Okay... looking at the possibility of going from the edition I have played for a decade (3.5e) to maybe moving to 5e...

Thoughts?
Is 5e REALLY D&D or is it just a "band-aid" for the edition that doesn't exist unless you're a brain-dead WoW addict or a quasi-quantic reality theorist? (I really should not have to be able to solve http://sites.psu.edu/thebigbangtheory/wp-content/uploads/sites/1331/2012/09/e-mu.png in order to take five-foot step.)

5e is the continuation of D&D after 2e. 3e and 4e aren't D&D.

If you do start playing 5e don't apply anything from 3e to it. Start from scratch. It is a different game.

[Millstone85]

Is 5e REALLY D&D or is it just a "band-aid" for the edition that doesn't exist
5e is the continuation of D&D after 2e. 3e and 4e aren't D&D.I burst out laughing. Best start to an edition war ever.

[Unoriginal]

5e is really D&D. It's without a doubt my favorite D&D edition.

But I get the feeling you're trying to start an edition war given your question and your insults.




So folks, please let's not take the bait, regardless of our opinions on previous editions.

[JNAProductions]

I like 3E. It's got a million and more things you can do, its power level ranges from below what I can do in real life to omnipotent deities, and it's really a system you can do just about anything in. It has its flaws, like being an absolute chore to balance, but I like it.

I like 4E. It's the best tactical D&D game, and while (from what I've heard-I never played pre-WotC D&D) it's a HUGE deviation from traditional D&D, it's a fun game! I think a lot of the gripes people have with it come from the way it was advertised and hearsay, not actual experience, as well as it having the D&D label without being very much like other D&D editions. If it was called "Tactics and Tussles" I don't think people would be nearly as upset with it. It does have its issues, but if you take it for what it is, it's a lot of fun.

I like 5E. It's the simplest system, pretty intuitive and easy to use, well-balanced, and in my opinion, the most fun. Mostly because it's the easiest to get in and start gaming with. No (or at least few) fiddly rules, just clean, simple, fun playing. It has its issues, but a lot of them can be solved by using homebrew (which is fun and easy to make, at least for me) and is my favorite so far.

[KRSW]

3.5 is fun, so is 5e. I have played quite a bit of both, min-maxing is almost nonexistent in 5e compared to 3.5. That allows for a lot more accessibility for players to get into the game. There is still min-maxing but a min-maxed character could just be a single-classed abjuration wizard that takes war caster and uses his other ASIs on pumping INT, take the good spells and that's really it.

If you like lots of choices for character building, I think that is something 5e lacks. Although, if you are playing with most of the 3.5 splat books, 5e is much more balanced and I think a balanced game with limited(relative) choices is better and more fun than a game with a lot of choices where game balance is thrown out of the window.

If you like a more story and role-play centered game then I think that is where 5e shines.

[2D8HP]

Okay... looking at the possibility of going from the edition I have played for a decade (3.5e) to maybe moving to 5e...

Thoughts?
Is 5e REALLY D&D...


No, real D&D died no later than 1985 when TSR in desperation for cash published the abomination that was Unearthed Arcana , where Gygax ruined his own game.

Oh wait, Gygax ruined Arneson's game when the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons PHB was published in 1978.

Or maybe D&D was ruined when good and evil added to the Alignment system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559645-D-amp-D-Alignment-a-history) in 1976.

Or just maybe the Greyhawk supplrment adding Paladins and Thieves to the existing Clerics, Fighting-Men, and Magic-Users was the big mistake.

Oh please, 3.5 is way too late of an edition, and 3e too game changing of an edition, for either to be the standard for "real D&D".

Nice try though.

But I'll pretend that your sincere.

I first bought the 3e PHB nearly 18 years ago, but I just bought the 3.5 PHB this year, but I still haven't played 3.5 yet (I also bought the Pathfinder Corebook again this year as I lost the first one I bought years ago), so I've never played 3.5, but I own that editions PHB, I played a lot of 0e and 1e way back, and I've played some 5e which has been fun, so I'll try and answer the best I can.


What's the appeal of this edition over previous ones?


More than TSR D&D?

Actual other people play it.

First level PC's can do a lot and usually survive to reach second level.

Compared to Pathfinder?

The Adventurers League game night isn't on the same night of the week as my Union meetings.

"Feats" are an option that I may ignore.

I can play the types of PC's that I want to play longer without as much fear of just being a Wizard's waterboy (judging by the permanent "Caster compared to Martials" 3.5 discussions).


....If the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!


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.


I've found 5e to be great fun to play, but both 3.5 and 5e seem more alike to me than they are to the game I picked up in 1978.


....or is it just a "band-aid" for the edition that doesn't exist unless you're a brain-dead WoW addict or a quasi-quantic reality theorist? (I really should not have to be able to solve http://sites.psu.edu/thebigbangtheory/wp-content/uploads/sites/1331/2012/09/e-mu.png in order to take five-foot step.)


I really have no idea what your talkin' 'bout.

I assume "WoW" means World of Warcraft which is some video game that I've never played, and I really don't know what you mean by the rest.

Please translate it to me.

[JNAProductions]

A lot of people say 4E is too "videogamey" or "like an MMO", which I've never really understood.

[Tyg3rW01f]

okay, guys.
to reply to the one who accused me (possibly rightly) of starting an edition war, YES, I'm excessively opinionated, but I have played 3.5 for a decade, and NwN (3ed) from 2002 to 2014. I also played WoW (much to my personal shame) for five years. I got ahold of several books in the bookstore of 4th ed, and it was WoW all over again AS FAR AS I UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING

from what EVERYONE ELSE is saying, it seems like 5th ed is a distilled version of 3 and 3.5 to get the best possible out of the two.
For everyone wha gave assistance, THANK YOU. It seems I will be looking into 5th ed soon after year's end.

[2D8HP]

A lot of people say 4E is too "videogamey" or "like an MMO", which I've never really understood.


Ah thank you.

Since the only video games I've played since the 1980's are a few minutes of two Naruto games, and some car racing ones, I really can't tell.

My chief impressions of my glance at 4e is that they went back to a 5-point Alignment system, like the 1977 Basic Set, a Half-Elf is illustrated with a beard, and what few details they are of the Nentir Vale setting looked cool.


okay, guys.
to reply to the one who accused me (possibly rightly) of starting an edition war, YES, I'm excessively opinionated, but I have played 3.5 for a decade, and NwN (3ed) from 2002 to 2014...


But have you played Dungeons & Dragons?

It was a great game published in 1974 and translated into english from Gygaxian in 1977 that was reprinted in 1999 and 2013, with games very similar to in published in 1981, 1983, 1991, 1994, and 1997.

I'm kidding a bit, but I am also very opinionated, and nothing gets me prickly like pretending that 25 years of D&D, including my D&D didn't exist.
http://i.imgur.com/l2YgKWJ.png


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76VaPmTHxI/AAAAAAAAB90/jp_QEn8jKSg/s320/conanelric1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76i4WQ-17I/AAAAAAAAB-E/xdEuV-lr0as/s320/conanelric2-1.jpghttp://blog.lefigaro.fr/hightech/Donjons-et-dragons.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QTIeBuLnD-A/UR_ToMA9-VI/AAAAAAAAAKA/q8g2RT4XY-s/s1600/holmes+box.jpg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rWVeZx2IP30
http://i.imgur.com/l5zlVzC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/XqgZdeq.png

[JNAProductions]

okay, guys.
to reply to the one who accused me (possibly rightly) of starting an edition war, YES, I'm excessively opinionated, but I have played 3.5 for a decade, and NwN (3ed) from 2002 to 2014. I also played WoW (much to my personal shame) for five years. I got ahold of several books in the bookstore of 4th ed, and it was WoW all over again AS FAR AS I UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING

from what EVERYONE ELSE is saying, it seems like 5th ed is a distilled version of 3 and 3.5 to get the best possible out of the two.
For everyone wha gave assistance, THANK YOU. It seems I will be looking into 5th ed soon after year's end.

Why are you ashamed of playing WoW? Like... No one's judging you for that. No one really cares-if you play it, and like it, good on you. Have a good time. If you play it and don't like it, stop playing it. But millions of people do like it, so while it's fine to say "I don't like World of Warcraft", it does not necessarily follow that "World of Warcraft is bad."

And it's really not like an MMO. What struck you as particularly MMO like in 4E?

As for 5E as compared to 3E... It's a very different game. If you really enjoy 3.5, honestly, just stick with 3.5. Try 5E, definitely, but if it's not to your taste, just stick to the older edition. Nothing wrong with that.

[Eric Diaz]

Okay... looking at the possibility of going from the edition I have played for a decade (3.5e) to maybe moving to 5e...

Thoughts?
Is 5e REALLY D&D or is it just a "band-aid" for the edition that doesn't exist unless you're a brain-dead WoW addict or a quasi-quantic reality theorist? (I really should not have to be able to solve http://sites.psu.edu/thebigbangtheory/wp-content/uploads/sites/1331/2012/09/e-mu.png in order to take five-foot step.)

Edition warring aside, the aswer is "no". If you want a couple of some comparisons between 3e and 5e, see my signature.

[Willie the Duck]

from what EVERYONE ELSE is saying, it seems like 5th ed is a distilled version of 3 and 3.5 to get the best possible out of the two.
For everyone wha gave assistance, THANK YOU. It seems I will be looking into 5th ed soon after year's end.

I do not know how you got that out of what people stated. 5e is not a distillation of 3.0 or 3.5, and no one said anything much like that. 5e will disappoint you if you cannot reset your expectations from the framing of exclusively 3e/3.5/PF (plus some 4e books you say are like WoW).

So I'm going to ask, have you played a TSR era D&D, or any non-D&D (/PF) table top RPGs? That would be useful information for us to know to help advise you on 5e.

[ad_hoc]

from what EVERYONE ELSE is saying, it seems like 5th ed is a distilled version of 3 and 3.5 to get the best possible out of the two.


If this is how you approach 5e you're going to have a bad time and think the game is broken.

The design goals and implementation are far from how 3e is constructed.

Having started with 2e, 5e felt like home. I can't speak to how close it is to editions before.

A few examples:

Rules are made with narrative in mind rather than simulation.
Rather than having buttons on character sheets, the game is open and characters are free to do all sorts of creative things.
Rules are meant to be intuitive. The goal of the rules is to have a table be able to guess at what the rule is and be right.
The game is based around 3 pillars of play: Combat, Exploration, and Social Interaction.
Instead of having an array of character options before play, characters have an array of options during play.

[Ignimortis]

Okay... looking at the possibility of going from the edition I have played for a decade (3.5e) to maybe moving to 5e...

Thoughts?
Is 5e REALLY D&D or is it just a "band-aid" for the edition that doesn't exist unless you're a brain-dead WoW addict or a quasi-quantic reality theorist? (I really should not have to be able to solve http://sites.psu.edu/thebigbangtheory/wp-content/uploads/sites/1331/2012/09/e-mu.png in order to take five-foot step.)


5e is the continuation of D&D after 2e. 3e and 4e aren't D&D.

If you do start playing 5e don't apply anything from 3e to it. Start from scratch. It is a different game.

Wow. That's basically a napalm storage with no OSHA compliance. Just waiting for a single match to drop... And 3e and 4e are still D&D.


okay, guys.
to reply to the one who accused me (possibly rightly) of starting an edition war, YES, I'm excessively opinionated, but I have played 3.5 for a decade, and NwN (3ed) from 2002 to 2014. I also played WoW (much to my personal shame) for five years. I got ahold of several books in the bookstore of 4th ed, and it was WoW all over again AS FAR AS I UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING

from what EVERYONE ELSE is saying, it seems like 5th ed is a distilled version of 3 and 3.5 to get the best possible out of the two.
For everyone wha gave assistance, THANK YOU. It seems I will be looking into 5th ed soon after year's end.

5e is not like 3.5e. 5e, if anything, is the attempt to reinvent 2e. As noted by other posters, it feels much more like AD&D than the later editions. The only similarity between 3.5e and 5e is if you've played 3.5 with E6 rules, then it's more similar.


If this is how you approach 5e you're going to have a bad time and think the game is broken.

The design goals and implementation are far from how 3e is constructed.

Having started with 2e, 5e felt like home. I can't speak to how close it is to editions before.

A few examples:

Rules are made with narrative in mind rather than simulation.
Rather than having buttons on character sheets, the game is open and characters are free to do all sorts of creative things.
Rules are meant to be intuitive. The goal of the rules is to have a table be able to guess at what the rule is and be right.
The game is based around 3 pillars of play: Combat, Exploration, and Social Interaction.
Instead of having an array of character options before play, characters have an array of options during play.

I would like to weigh in on that. There are almost no rules for exploration or social interaction. 90% of the rules are for combat. Skill systems are lackluster, unless you enjoy asking your DM if that skill is applicable here and if you can roll for it. Non-spellcasting characters don't really have that many relevant options during play unless they come from their class features - a Shadow Monk can do lots of things most of the time and is a fun class until you're in broad daylight, but a Champion Fighter is basically an auto-attack bot who can shove once in a while. And yes, I come from 3.5/PF camp, and I did in fact think that the game was broken for a few years. Now I just understand that it's not like 3.5 except in some of its' worst parts.

[CircleOfTheRock]

A lot of people say 4E is too "videogamey" or "like an MMO", which I've never really understood.
Correct if I’m wrong (for I’ve never played 4e) but I believe the whole “now that you’re Level 27, you can go farm Level 27 demon boars!” thing is the reason it’s regarded as being like WoW.

[Luccan]

I'm actually really curious about the people saying 5e is more like 2e. I have 0 experience with the latter, but was always told it was fairly complicated, so if someone wants to expand on what they mean I'd be interested. My understanding was 5e was an attempt to combine several positive things about the last three editions while simplifying some more complex mechanics, not hop back over the last two editions entirely.

[Waazraath]

5e is not like 3.5e. 5e, if anything, is the attempt to reinvent 2e. As noted by other posters, it feels much more like AD&D than the later editions. The only similarity between 3.5e and 5e is if you've played 3.5 with E6 rules, then it's more similar.

Funny, I really see it differently. I come from 3.5 (played it up to last year), and I think it's mainly similair: similair classes, with likewise abilities as in 3.x, 20 levels, spells being similair but tuned down. For me it really is a much better, much more balanced version of 3.x. Fully aware that some of the improvements probably come from 4th, or earlier, though I did play earlier editions. But remembering the hell that was Thac0, I think 5e is much more similar to 3 in many regards.




I would like to weigh in on that. There are almost no rules for exploration or social interaction. 90% of the rules are for combat. Skill systems are lackluster, unless you enjoy asking your DM if that skill is applicable here and if you can roll for it. Non-spellcasting characters don't really have that many relevant options during play unless they come from their class features - a Shadow Monk can do lots of things most of the time and is a fun class until you're in broad daylight, but a Champion Fighter is basically an auto-attack bot who can shove once in a while. And yes, I come from 3.5/PF camp, and I did in fact think that the game was broken for a few years. Now I just understand that it's not like 3.5 except in some of its' worst parts.

Wut? 90% of the rules on combat? There's an entire chapter on backgrounds! A huge part of the book is 'spells' which are both combat and non-combat. The chapters on races, customization, using ability scores, adventuring: all not or partly not about combat.

Disagree with lacking relevant options uring play for non-spellcasters. That shadow monk has still illusions at will, can walk over water or run op to walls, fall down from great heights without harm, create darkness, make the entire party stealthy, etc. etc.... if you can't utilize those to be relevant and fun, I don't know what. And a champion fighter is only a mindless attack bot if you play it like that. Pick feats, use racial features, shove, grapple, improvise combat maneuvers, use the environment, etc. etc. There's a world of possibilities.

[Ignimortis]

Funny, I really see it differently. I come from 3.5 (played it up to last year), and I think it's mainly similair: similair classes, with likewise abilities as in 3.x, 20 levels, spells being similair but tuned down. For me it really is a much better, much more balanced version of 3.x. Fully aware that some of the improvements probably come from 4th, or earlier, though I did play earlier editions. But remembering the hell that was Thac0, I think 5e is much more similar to 3 in many regards.


Mechanically, yes, that is true that the chassis is similar. That's why I tried to look at 5e using 3.5e's standards - and it turned out to be wrong and actively harmful to my enjoyment of the game. The resultant feeling from bounded accuracy and limited power level are much more like AD&D, only modernized. Of course WotC wouldn't bring back THAC0, but the main idea behind 5e seems to be to emulate all previous editions to some extent, and I've seen people who like "classic D&D" and dislike 3e and 4e praise 5e very often.



Wut? 90% of the rules on combat? There's an entire chapter on backgrounds! A huge part of the book is 'spells' which are both combat and non-combat. The chapters on races, customization, using ability scores, adventuring: all not or partly not about combat.

Disagree with lacking relevant options uring play for non-spellcasters. That shadow monk has still illusions at will, can walk over water or run op to walls, fall down from great heights without harm, create darkness, make the entire party stealthy, etc. etc.... if you can't utilize those to be relevant and fun, I don't know what. And a champion fighter is only a mindless attack bot if you play it like that. Pick feats, use racial features, shove, grapple, improvise combat maneuvers, use the environment, etc. etc. There's a world of possibilities.

Spells are only accessible to spellcasters and they always take a lot of space. What I meant is that there are no rules for social interactions and exploration beyond vague skill definition "this skill could be used in this situation". Meanwhile, every action in combat has at least a short paragraph devoted to it.
And Shadow Monk is a positive example - that's exactly what they can do almost all the time, and that's a good class design. A champion fighter rarely has any opportunity to do something that will be of more use than to swing his weapon really hard. Maybe once in a while, but your class features don't contribute to that and anyone with the same STR score and a single skill proficiency can do the same, even the wizard who nabbed those Gloves of Ogre Strength and has Athletics from his background.

I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but I've played several 5e characters in various campaigns in a row, and then had the first chance to play in a PF campaign in years. I've never actually seen environment usage (aside from elevation) matter all that much unless it was very obviously designed to do something. But in PF I had actual options and decision making in combat as a martial character. Battlemaster Fighter in 5e felt very, very drab and limited after a Harbinger.

[oxybe]

Correct if I’m wrong (for I’ve never played 4e) but I believe the whole “now that you’re Level 27, you can go farm Level 27 demon boars!” thing is the reason it’s regarded as being like WoW.

Note that I am assuming a tongue in cheek tone with the next line: As opposed to what? Now you're Level 13, time to go do a Lair Raid on those Challenge Rating 13 Beholders in 5th?

If people are complaining that 4th ed gave GMs many different level appropriate monsters for them to use if they feel like it a problem, then there is simply no pleasing some people. D&D has generally always had a problem with high level encounters not having decent "filler" monsters. There's a point where you need a middleground between "jamming hordes of bone devils you need to wade through to pad out those encounters in hell" to "a balor around every corner". The Demon Boar fills that design niche: a singular, somewhat nondescript, tough enemy that can be added in a high level fight without spamming Balors all over the place, making that one "Balor" encounter a bit more significant.

If the complaint is that X monster is basically Y monster with bigger numbers, then the same complaint can be levied against something like 5th ed's Fire giant, which is probably the most boring CR 9 stat block ever, basically being an upgrade to the CR2 Ogre, which itself is kinda like Orc++.

If the complaint is that Demon Boars are somehow offensive to the reader conceptually, I don't like gnomes, but i'm not going to raise flaming pitchforks because they were included in a book... I'll just not use them or allow their use.

To my knowledge, the 4e=WoW was born from a bunch of misinformation (for example on how the fighter's Marking worked) it was the standardized AEDU/"the cooldown", the similar framework all classes were built upon and the magic item treadmill that caused some chafing.

The first two go hand in hand, in that it makes going from one class to another a bit less daunting: you don't need to learn a whole new subset of how some stuff works... the core foundation of each power and class is the same, but rather how they use it makes the difference. As such going from fighter to wizard is more of a playstyle change as opposed to playstyle + mechanical one.

The AEDU structure is simply borrowing the 3 main timeframes for when an ability recharges: At-will, useable pretty much whenever you want, Encounter (technically 5 minutes) but for the most part it's something that can be used once per scene, and Dailies, which are once or twice per session abilities. Any given Utility fell somewhere between those three timeframes of when you can use them. some people took issue with "why can my fighter only pull off this one maneuver once per fight?" since it wasn't locked behind something spell slots or but the "arbitrary" encounter cooldown (which isn't any more arbitrary then spellslots IMO, but YMMV)... but personally I find the 1/scene limitation makes any given use of that power standout a bit more, and considering how short the timeframe for some D&D fights actually are (a 10 round fight is technically only a minute long in-game) I'm fine with it, but YMMV.

The magic item threadmill was built under the assumption that you'll be either upgrading or swapping out items regularly as the game progresses, and the math of the game was built with that in mind. Though they did give an alternative where your items grew alongside you, so your item-based math always checked out. I like magic-item heavy games, so I was fine with this. Others aren't and there is a variant for that.

As for the Fighter's Mark it's less MMO-style aggro management and more directly lifted from football. or soccer if you're north american (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marking_(association_football)).

Now, this isn't to say 4th ed was perfect by any stretch. It had it's fair share of bugbears, but none of them caused me to balk at the game and go "THIS ISN'T D&D" anymore then the changes 3rd ed did from 2nd. I still largely had the same type of games and found 4th lent itself to a more action-oriented pulp style play. Which is great since I had problems doing so in 2nd in a way that felt natural and my experience with 3rd caused me to be frustrated at the low and high levels of play, giving me a small window within the levelling system where I could run that style of game.

As for my 2cp with 5th ed: It's very... ok. I don't particularly dislike it, I just don't feel any particular enthusiasm towards the system. It has it's own faults, but none are too glaring that make it unplayable, but none of it's strengths really do anything for me that 2nd, 3rd or 4th don't already do better IMO (and I'm willing to put aside the flaws of those editions and play them if I'm itching for a game that focuses on their strengths). My final words for 5th (or 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, BECMI, whatever) is "Try it, there's a free preview online". If you like it, hooray you have one more game to play. If you don't like it, you gave it a shake and if you're lucky you might have found a mechanic to steal or rework for your home game with another system.

[holywhippet]

My view is this:

2nd edition was fun but had some odd choices to it. There were some odd things about it giving an odd balance to it. The identify spell for example took 8 hours to cast, only gave a chance of learning information about an item, then required 8 hours to recover from temporary CON loss. Level draining monsters were a nightmare since the only spell to block them wasn't 100% reliable and if you managed to recover your level with a spell you only got just enough experience points back to get back to your original levels. Certain magical items would set your stat values, like gauntlets of ogre power, so a weakling could be stronger than most people just be wearing them. In certain ways your stats didn't matter all that much anyway and only gave bonuses to certain classes. Paladins required a very large amount of charisma as a prerequisite even though it was generally considered to be the #1 dump stat for that edition.

3rd edition was better IMO. Stats actually had more of an effect on game mechanics regardless of class. Magical items were more balanced - you could find items to give you +5 to strength for example rather than just setting your strength to a certain value. The main imbalances in 3rd edition were from gaining certain abilities from classes at certain levels and that the classes themselves weren't balanced across the board at higher levels. This was kind of still the same as 2nd edition - at high levels a wizard going full out would easily out damage a fighter. The other problems crept in as extra books were released and certain combos were discovered. Divine metamagic abuse was one good example of how feats and class abilities could make certain character builds far more powerful than others.

4th edition tried to solve the balance issues of 3rd edition mainly via a brute force approach. They just removed pretty much avoided anything that might allow a character to get too powerful. The main problem was a lot of the fun or clever tricks you could pull of in earlier editions were no longer possible. Like using spider climb to perch up on a wall and snipe at enemies who don't have ranged weapons or making a bear into a respected member of the aristocracy via skills and items. There was fun to be had, but the option to think outside of the box is a lot more limited.

5th edition takes elements of 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition and blends them together to form a system that is more reminiscent of 2nd and 3rd edition. It has fewer opportunities to abuse the mechanics to make overpowered characters but also gives more opportunities to think outside of the box and pull off some powerful tricks and combos. It also appears to borrow a bit from magic the gathering with the reaction powers that certain classes get. For example, in 2nd and 3rd edition if you were trying to hit someone with a sword you'd generally just make your attack roll, apply any modifiers and compare the result to the target's AC. In 5th edition you could have the following situation: Character A takes a swing at Character B. Character A doesn't roll all that well and uses a bardic inspiration given to them by Character C. With the bonus they get enough to hit, but Chararcter B casts shield to block the strike. Character C uses their reaction to cast counterspell to prevent the shield from working and uses a 5th level spell slot to do so. Character D tries to prevent this and uses counterspell to try and stop the counterspell of Character C. They use a 3rd level spell slot as they have no 5th level slots and have to make a roll for it to work. They roll poorly and try using a bardic inspiration given to them by Character E. That still isn't enough so their counterspell fails, Character C's counterspell succeeds, the shield spell is disrupted and Character A hits Character B with their sword.

Therin lies the main difference in 5th edition. There are so many options that you can apply depending on your build. It offers greater tactical depth without as much potential for rules abuse (there are still some very strong combos though).

[War_lord]

I think they're not at all similar. The character creation sub-game that's a huge part of the d20 family of games, and arguably the cause of many of the problems with those games, doesn't exist in 5th edition. 3rd edition's attempt to "unify" the game rules so that PCs and NPC/Monster classes played by the same rules doesn't exist in 3rd edition. A lot of the simulationist stuff that existed in 3rd edition is gone, and in its place is a more old school "DM ruling" mindset. Magic items are treated differently. Caster dominance is gone. Buffs are no long spammable.

Anyone coming into 5e with the mindset that it's going to be 3.9 is going to bounce out very quickly. If you genuinely like 3.5 in spite of its problems I'd advise either sticking with 3.5 or trying Pathfinder. I say that because, no offense, you do seem like the typical sort of 3.5 player who started with that edition and have internalized it was the "true D&D" despite the fact that in the history of D&D it's actually a weird exception to the norm.

[carrdrivesyou]

I recently converted from 3.5 to 5e, although I still play the occasional pathfinder campaign. Allow me to ignore the aforementioned edition war (and my personal bias) and give you my honest opinions on the systems relatively:

1. 5e is a much more simplified system when compared to 3.5. While 3.5 has a class or prestige class to fit either the flavor or mechanics you are looking for, 5e tried to take the approach of forcing characters into thematic subclasses. The result is a simpler, easier to use system that removes MOST of the Tier system seen in previous editions. Fighters are still legitimate threats to wizards at high levels and such. Which leads us to point 2.

2. Classes have been worked into a more balanced and nigh-unbreakable system. Including the Unearthed Arcana playtest material, there are 14 base classes, each with their own subclasses that give them specific abilities that match their flavor and style. They have also removed Prestige classes completely, sans a single one they tried in the early playtest. There really doesn't exist a Tier system as JaronK created for 3.5, but there are some serious differences in sheer versatility of abilities. IIRC Lore Bard is the most versatile making it the "Tier 1" choice, while Champion fighter was the "tier 3" lowest choice. In any situation most characters will have something to contribute. There are less restrictions on skills and "what can my character do."

3. Character mechanics have been simplified. This means that while your character will still have their area of expertise, the game is more focused on the plot and story rather than annoying mechanics. Therefore, characters will always have an option and not feel useless. The skills particularly are more condensed and some things just require straight ability checks where a particular skill or tool set does not apply. This stresses more creativity from both sides of the table and generally brings the more fantasy aspects of the game to fruition.

4. Overall, 5e differs in the way that it is simpler, easier to understand, flows better, and doesn't get bogged down with rules lawyering. There are similarities in the way there are conditional modifiers such as levels of fatigue, poisoned, paralyze, etc. There are also the same basic damage types: thunder, fire, cold, poison, etc., but a few new ones like necrotic and radiant which used to be positive and negative energy respectfully. While most of the concepts remain in place, the mechanics have been redesigned to be easier to understand and more intuitive.

5. Powergaming doesn't really exist in 5e so much. As I said before, there really aren't tiers to play to. It really just depends on how beefed up the baddies are which makes your case of how strong you are relevant to the campaign setting. You can still optimize and min/max, but it doesn't get you as far as it did in 3.5.

In summation, for your conversion to this edition, you receive a well-rounded, more balanced edition of D&D, more focused on plot and storytelling than mechanics of whose fireball burns hotter. You also receive fewer class options but those options bring a solid amount to the table, so much that it isn't disappointing. The spellcasting mechanics make things a bit more fair (having a single spell slot per day of 6th through 9th for full casters), but despite this cut to spells per day, it doesn't make them any less potent.

I was excited for 5e when I first got it, but as a 3.5 vet myself (I played for about 7 years), the only thing I am really disappointed with is the lack of classes. Even with the subclasses, I find myself going over the same ground with character creation. Every time I look at a new character, it seems to be a plagiarized version of another one I have already made (partly due to lack of options, partly due to my own choices). Despite this, the characters I make have their own definitive feel and flavor to them.

I hope this helps clarify your questions. Feel free to PM me with any other questions you may have.
-Carr

[Anonymouswizard]

5e is the continuation of D&D after 2e. 3e and 4e aren't D&D.

If you do start playing 5e don't apply anything from 3e to it. Start from scratch. It is a different game.

5e is weird.

It's a continuation of the ideas and the very basic mechanics of 3.X, but throws out a lot of stuff and essentially rebuilds it. It's not like DSA, where the game was simplified, it's literally a case of everything now works slightly differently.

But it's not a different game. You're not going to open the book and find Fate or Unknown Armies mechanics. It's just a different and rather incomplete system.


A lot of people say 4E is too "videogamey" or "like an MMO", which I've never really understood.

I'm short it's a matter of presentation.

4e bundles that into varieties of 'powers', explains the four roles it's built around, admits it mainly cares about combat, and gives detailed encounter guidelines and variations on most common monsters so they can fulfill multiple encounter building roles. The end result is... exactly the same as many 3.5 games, just with per encounter powers and a greater focus on the adventure being a fair challenge.

There's some quirks about 4e. It took me a long time to discover you started with 100gp, because that wasn't where I was looking for it. But it's still made to take advantage of being a tabletop game.

[Efrate]

5e is similar to noob friendly 3.5. It's a very easy system, character gen is quite simple, and bounded accuracy and stats maxing at 20 means the power level is flattened. That goblin still hits you at level 20. You will never walk through the army and be unharmed. At the same time, you are at least a threat to that dragon at lower levels, it's never hopeless.

Your die roll matters more than most your modifiers for most of your career. You pick your archetype at level 3 and that determines pretty much the whole of your abilities. There are very few decisions to make post character creation regarding what abilities You get. You can choose feats, which are an optional rule that most tables use, or ability score increases at certain levels depending on class. They are plus 2 or plus 1 to two stats. Feats can be pretty good or pretty meh or useless depending on class. Overall they are fairly nice with fewer trap or useless options. Also no feat chains. You get what you get when you get it, not after spending multiple feats on useless prereqs.

[Willie the Duck]

Funny, I really see it differently. I come from 3.5 (played it up to last year), and I think it's mainly similair: similair classes, with likewise abilities as in 3.x, 20 levels, spells being similair but tuned down. For me it really is a much better, much more balanced version of 3.x. Fully aware that some of the improvements probably come from 4th, or earlier, though I did play earlier editions. But remembering the hell that was Thac0, I think 5e is much more similar to 3 in many regards.


5e is weird.
It's a continuation of the ideas and the very basic mechanics of 3.X, but throws out a lot of stuff and essentially rebuilds it. It's not like DSA, where the game was simplified, it's literally a case of everything now works slightly differently.

Therein lies a difficulty in this kind of discussion -- what is a 3e-ism (or 5e-ism, B/X-is, etc.)?

5e maintains some rudimentary stuff that was entirely too long in coming that, I'm going to guess 60-90% of TSR-era gamers said "finally!" when 3.0 first did it. Stuff like: shared xp table, all races can play all classes, racial level limits not used as balancing mechanism, no stat prereqs for classes (leading to the double reward after rolling well of being able to access superior classes), and so on and so forth. That stuff is so intuitive, it'd be foolhardy to undo that change, so of course 4e and 5e kept them. But does that make them like 3e? Given that they are a huge chunk of the base mechanics, sort of. But not necessarily in other rather important ways. 5e and 3e differing on narrative vs. simulationist makes it hard for me to call them at all similar, but someone else can point out shared xp charts, feats, dragonborn and tieflings, etc. etc. etc. and say "explain again how you think this is RC done right?"

[ad_hoc]

Wow. That's basically a napalm storage with no OSHA compliance. Just waiting for a single match to drop... And 3e and 4e are still D&D.

I'm just being cheeky. The OP was asking if 5e was D&D, implying that 3e is the gold standard of what D&D is.


I would like to weigh in on that. There are almost no rules for exploration or social interaction.

The game is based around it though. The assumption is that the party will be engaged in all 3 pillars. Combat is much faster allowing more time for the others. The published adventures all have opportunities to engage in all 3 pillars.


but a Champion Fighter is basically an auto-attack bot who can shove once in a while. And yes, I come from 3.5/PF camp, and I did in fact think that the game was broken for a few years. Now I just understand that it's not like 3.5 except in some of its' worst parts.

That's just it - The Champion Fighter doesn't have buttons on their character sheet, but they can do all sorts of things.

That's the difference between 3e and 5e. It's not wonder you come from 3e as this framing is straight from there. There are fewer buttons on the character sheet but much more freedom in the actual game.

[ad_hoc]

Funny, I really see it differently. I come from 3.5 (played it up to last year), and I think it's mainly similair: similair classes, with likewise abilities as in 3.x, 20 levels, spells being similair but tuned down. For me it really is a much better, much more balanced version of 3.x. Fully aware that some of the improvements probably come from 4th, or earlier, though I did play earlier editions. But remembering the hell that was Thac0, I think 5e is much more similar to 3 in many regards.


I've posted a few examples upthread but here are some more:

In 3e characters had WBL and magic item shops. In 5e characters could have no items, some items, or super powerful ones, and all is according to plan. Magic items are magical again.
In 3e combats are supposed to all be 'fair' following a strict guideline of CR vs the party. Which contains WBL etc. While 5e uses the term CR it is entirely different. Combats can be 'unfair'. The adventure is just the adventure. There is no strict this is an adventure for X level characters. I've heard this referred to as Combat as Sport vs Combat as War. That is a huge difference in the way the game is played.
In 3e characters start with very few options and need to take feats to do rudimentary things. In 5e, like 2e and before, characters can just do things.

5e uses a lot of the language of 3e but they often mean different things. Just because there is nothing called THAC0 doesn't mean it isn't like 2e.

[MilkmanDanimal]

Instead of having an array of character options before play, characters have an array of options during play.

I think if I had to pick one sentence as to why I greatly prefer 5e or 3.5e, it's this; always felt like the whole point of 3.5e came down to figuring out how to build the perfect character, and then the game itself came later. So much of 3.5 involved optimization and spending time combing through all those options. 5e is plug-and-play, and it provides (for me) a pretty much perfect balance of rules to give a guideline, without making things incredibly restrictive like 4e did. I mean, I really liked 4e for what it was, and I still think it's a phenomenal tabletop miniatures game, but the proverbial exploration and social pillars barely existed, and every time I played it it turned into a series of tactically fascinating but meaningless combat encounters.

[Haldir]

I used to believe that 3.5 was the gold standard of D&D, until I played 5e. Now I'm a true 5e believer and you'd probably have to pay me to play 3.PF ever again. Especially as a primary DM, the very idea of having 3.PF characters at the table makes me mentally exhausted. There's just too much nonsense there.

5e gets right to the good stuff. If you need 10,000 pages of written material for your character to feel unique, well then you're probably missing what actually makes characters unique and interesting.

[Waazraath]

I've posted a few examples upthread but here are some more:

In 3e characters had WBL and magic item shops. In 5e characters could have no items, some items, or super powerful ones, and all is according to plan. Magic items are magical again.
In 3e combats are supposed to all be 'fair' following a strict guideline of CR vs the party. Which contains WBL etc. While 5e uses the term CR it is entirely different. Combats can be 'unfair'. The adventure is just the adventure. There is no strict this is an adventure for X level characters. I've heard this referred to as Combat as Sport vs Combat as War. That is a huge difference in the way the game is played.
In 3e characters start with very few options and need to take feats to do rudimentary things. In 5e, like 2e and before, characters can just do things.

5e uses a lot of the language of 3e but they often mean different things. Just because there is nothing called THAC0 doesn't mean it isn't like 2e.

Thac0 is of course also just an example. See the post of Willie the Duck;Thac0, classes having the same XP table, having all classes have the same (xp) progression 1-20, etc.

I don't agree with you assessment on 3.x as combat as sport and 5e as combat as war. Maybe 5e is a bit more suited for the latter, but both editions accomodate both play styles. 5e campaigns also assume you run into orks in the beginning, and huge dragons, elemental princes or demon lords at the end of the adventure, and not the other way around.

Agree with the fact that it's a great improvement that characters can just do things, without a feat. That's indeed more Advanced (and earlier) than 3.x, but that's why I said in the first place: a lot of 3.x, but other good stuff (prolly from other editions) as well.

[JNAProductions]

Thac0 is of course also just an example. See the post of Willie the Duck;Thac0, classes having the same XP table, having all classes have the same (xp) progression 1-20, etc.

I don't agree with you assessment on 3.x as combat as sport and 5e as combat as war. Maybe 5e is a bit more suited for the latter, but both editions accomodate both play styles. 5e campaigns also assume you run into orks in the beginning, and huge dragons, elemental princes or demon lords at the end of the adventure, and not the other way around.

Agree with the fact that it's a great improvement that characters can just do things, without a feat. That's indeed more Advanced (and earlier) than 3.x, but that's why I said in the first place: a lot of 3.x, but other good stuff (prolly from other editions) as well.

Yeah, even as a big 5E fan, it's not inherently any more CaW than 3.5 is. Nor is CaW preferable, in all cases, either.

[Waazraath]

The character creation sub-game that's a huge part of the d20 family of games, and arguably the cause of many of the problems with those games, doesn't exist in 5th edition.

Huh? We still have classes, races, feats, spells, and these days even subclasses. There is synergy at points, and none at other. There is a limitless number of options. Of course the sub-game stille exists! Plenty of folks here posting builds or asking questions on them.

The difference is: a great build in 3.x could end up with an infinite number of everything and beat each and every published adventure by itself. At level 1, with enough cheese. A great 5e builds performs a bit above average.

And that's great, cause it is testimony to the balance of 5e. But the game is still there!

[JNAProductions]

I'd definitely agree that the character building minigame is a LOT smaller in 5E. There's just plain less content-but what content there is is balanced.

[Waazraath]

I'd definitely agree that the character building minigame is a LOT smaller in 5E. There's just plain less content-but what content there is is balanced.

Smaller - fair enough. But not gone!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Smaller - fair enough. But not gone!

It's hard to completely remove it as long as there are any character building choices to make.

In 5e, it's there but it fundamentally doesn't matter (or matters way less than it did). So you can basically make a perfectly fine character by choosing a theme and picking what looks good for that theme.

[JNAProductions]

It's hard to completely remove it as long as there are any character building choices to make.

In 5e, it's there but it fundamentally doesn't matter (or matters way less than it did). So you can basically make a perfectly fine character by choosing a theme and picking what looks good for that theme.

Which, to me, is a positive. While I do enjoy 3E character crafting (sometimes) I think it's better that you can just pick what's cool and still be good.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which, to me, is a positive. While I do enjoy 3E character crafting (sometimes) I think it's better that you can just pick what's cool and still be good.

I agree with that. I play with new players, and it helps tremendously. They can get right in and generally make good choices without issues.

[Waazraath]

It's hard to completely remove it as long as there are any character building choices to make.

In 5e, it's there but it fundamentally doesn't matter (or matters way less than it did). So you can basically make a perfectly fine character by choosing a theme and picking what looks good for that theme.

This justifies a thread on its own ;) Will try to create one!

[ad_hoc]

This justifies a thread on its own ;) Will try to create one!

Pretty sure there are already 100 threads with 10 000 replies.

[Waazraath]

Pretty sure there are already 100 threads with 10 000 replies.

If that's an argument, then we can just as well stop with this forum, can't we?

[Unoriginal]

If that's an argument, then we can just as well stop with this forum, can't we?

Sounds like a good idea. We should do this.

[Waazraath]

Sounds like a good idea. We should do this.

What a weird idea. Why are you here if you don't want to talk about the game? I'm here because I want to talk about the game. This is this forum, where we talk about the game, right?

[War_lord]

We don't want to have the same conversation about that game where everyone has already staked out positions that aren't going to change. There is no character building minigame in 5e. You make a few small decisions about how your character plays, but over all, you're selection a class/subclass package. And the 3.5 ivory tower isn't there, it's almost impossible to make a bad character, and the difference between an unoptimised character created by picking whatever sounds cool and a hyper optimum character created using a guide is not the massive gulf it was in 3.5.

[Waazraath]

We don't want to have the same conversation about that game where everyone has already staked out positions that aren't going to change. There is no character building minigame in 5e. You make a few small decisions about how your character plays, but over all, you're selection a class/subclass package. And the 3.5 ivory tower isn't there, it's almost impossible to make a bad character, and the difference between an unoptimised character created by picking whatever sounds cool and a hyper optimum character created using a guide is not the massive gulf it was in 3.5.

Dude. The bolded part is an opinion. One that you are totally entitled to have. But one that is also objectively false, and a bit silly, given countless threads on fora like this one. People presenting builds (even mentioning never are going to play them), optimization guides, handbooks. It's all there. Weird, isn't it? All those people playing the character building mini-game, despite the fact that this guy War_lord declared it dead. Terrible, having badwrongfun, the lot of them!

You know, if "you" ("we"? who is this "we" you are speaking for?) aren't interested in having a discussion, here's a pro-tip: don't reply to it.

For the people who are interested in a discussion: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559967-The-making-a-build-mini-game-dead

Feel free to join.

[JNAProductions]

But it IS factual that the character building minigame is far, FAR less than you had in 3E.

Which is okay.

[Waazraath]

But it IS factual that the character building minigame is far, FAR less than you had in 3E.

Which is okay.

I already agreed on the first one here: in http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23106149&postcount=35
I also agree with the second. I love the greater balance in 5e compared with 3.x. But with effort and creativity (or sometimes with a few obvious choices), you can make a relevant difference optimizing. For me, they hit the sweet spot with this edition.

[2D8HP]

Again with the caveat that while I've glanced at their ruled, I've never played 2e to 4e, just some 0e (with supplements), 1e AD&D, B/X, and 5e WD&D, plus other RPG's and war games.

I've played a game where 3 players started with 4e, one who started with 2e and had played 3e, 3.5, 4e, and PF, me who started with the '77 rules (0e + the AD&D Monster Manual), and a sixth player whom I've forgotten his previous games.

Five of us all missed some features of other games that we previous played, but we didn't all miss the same things, and all of us played 5e together.

I think it's worthwhile to learn 5e and greatly expand whom you may play with.

Having gone from TSR to 5e, and then looked to play 3.5/PF, TSR seems the easiest to learn, but hit points being likely to start lower, and slower healing means new players new PC's mean survival to second level is less likely, 3.5 lookd the hardest to learn to me, because of Fighters having to pick Feats, and a chorus of voices saying this or that option is "a trap" (whatever that's supposed to mean), so 5e just seems more welcoming to new players (but less welcoming to new DM's than the '77 Basic Set).

If you want a version of D&D that's more welcoming to new players, you may like 5e, and find it worthwhile, and you may like it as a "compromise edition".

But if you have a table that's already familiar with a different set of rules they like, and feel no need for new players, 5e may not be worth it to learn, unless the legends of the whole 3.x "Caster Supremacy" thing are true and bug you (though just not playing high levels may do the trick for that).

[SiCK_Boy]

Really unsure what the OP is trying to accomplish with this thread and this way of framing his questions. You are asking for pure opinion from random people on a discussion board...

To answer the question (Is 5th edition really D&D), I can say all the official books bear the D&D logo, and keep referring to the game as D&D, so I would say that yes, it is really "D&D". In fact, considering this edition of the game has been out for almost 4 years now, and has brought plenty of new and returning players to the game, chances are that 5th edition is what most people would think of when you speak to them about "D&D" without any other context.


is it just a "band-aid" for the edition that doesn't exist unless you're a brain-dead WoW addict or a quasi-quantic reality theorist?


Really unsure what that question means. Did you mean "is it just a "band-aid" for 4th edition"? If so, then the answer is no. D&D 5th is certainly a response to 4th edition (the makers of the game realized 4th edition was a relative failure, and did a lot of playtesting and worked with their public to try to provide a better game). That response, by almost all measurable metrics, seems to have been a success.

Now, to me, there are so many more ways to frame the discussion (assuming, again, you are not just looking at launching an edition war):

- Why are you considering changing edition? Is it someone else in your group who proposed it or did you just wake up one morning thinking about this?
- What is it you enjoy in D&D 3.5? Knowing what you like, it will be easier for people to tell you if you can find similar experiences in 5th edition, or what kind of changes to expect
- Are you a player or a DM?

In the end, the best way to know if you like 5th edition is to try it out. Find a group that plays it, and go play in a session or two. With the Adventurer League, its easier than ever to play the game.

If you don't want to spend a fortune (if you consider 50 to 100 $ a fortune) initially, just buy the Starter Set and play the adventure included. Or just use the free SRD to build a few basic characters, and try it out.

Then you'll know if that edition is for you or not.

[Anonymouswizard]

Huh? We still have classes, races, feats, spells, and these days even subclasses. There is synergy at points, and none at other. There is a limitless number of options. Of course the sub-game stille exists! Plenty of folks here posting builds or asking questions on them.

The difference is: a great build in 3.x could end up with an infinite number of everything and beat each and every published adventure by itself. At level 1, with enough cheese. A great 5e builds performs a bit above average.

And that's great, cause it is testimony to the balance of 5e. But the game is still there!

I'd actually say that character building in 5e has more moving parts, it's just that there's a lot less options.

Considering core only, in 3.X you have: ability scores, race, class, feats, skills, spells. In 5e you have: ability scores, race, subrace, class, subcllass, feats/ability score increases, proficiencies, spells. Ignoring skills versus proficiencies, there's really no difference in core-only complexity, while 5e theoretically avoids 3.X's complexity via feats it adds in the compleity of facing feats and ability scores off against each other, and adds more choices just to begin at first level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd actually say that character building in 5e has more moving parts, it's just that there's a lot less options.

Considering core only, in 3.X you have: ability scores, race, class, feats, skills, spells. In 5e you have: ability scores, race, subrace, class, subcllass, feats/ability score increases, proficiencies, spells. Ignoring skills versus proficiencies, there's really no difference in core-only complexity, while 5e theoretically avoids 3.X's complexity via feats it adds in the compleity of facing feats and ability scores off against each other, and adds more choices just to begin at first level.

I actually went through and calculated the number of long-term (ie more than 1 day until you can change it again) choices each class makes in 3e (ok, PF), 4e, and 5e.

5e had the lowest, although it had huge variance. Median choices over 20 levels was 25 (about 1 per level). Min was 12, Max was 65.
3e was tops, by far. Even counting selecting skill points as 1 choice (which it isn't, not at all). Median choices over 20 levels was 48, min was 39 and max was 97(!)
Averaged over 20 levels, 4e had ~40 for all classes (since all are identical in build milestones).