5e is great

[Dmdork]

Coming off of 3.5, 5e is a big change. 3.5 really maxed out the whole 'having a rule for everything'. I feel like 5e it puts the game back in the hands of the DM. Its like, here's some rules, the rest is DMs call. Theoretically one would think that there's gonna be more DMs calls for 5e, since, well, there's not a lotta rules. In practice however, even though 3.5 had so many rules, it created more DM calls, as the DMs find themselves making calls on all Those rules. I realized there's always gonna be DMs calls, cuz of game design, so might as well tighten it up and simplify the game. It makes for more playing time and less deliberation.
In regard to 3.5 vs 5e, another big thing (probably only in my game) that makes for more playing time and less talk is the 'no more crazy spell buffing'. Higher level chars in my 3.5 group would have like 5 or 10 different spell buffs cast on every char, which would take hours, literally. 5e lets you buff a bit, so you can have 'some' fun with it.
So, I've calculated that the simple rules and no crazy buffs gives us probably %50 more playing time, which is awesome. I'm almost done with Tryanny of dragons campaign, it took one year. I can't imagine how long it would have taken to play that in 3.5, maybe twice as long.
My players still enjoy playing their chars. I was concerned that the lack of 'options' (prestige classes, etc, of 3.5) would make it boring to play the same guy at higher levels. Not the case however, they're good. Still, I lost half of my players on the switch from 3.5 to 5e, stubborn old birds (and a few youngins). Luckily, the crew is large....

[ImproperJustice]

Welcome to 5e.
It’s my favorite version of D&d so far.

[mgshamster]

We had a similar experience. We came over from Pathfinder, and really haven't looked back since.

Right before Starfinder came out, we tried a higher module for Pathfinder in preparation. Couldn't even finish the module with all the rules lookups and pauses to the game to ensure we were playing right.

Then, with Starfinder, while the rules wereuch better we still couldn't finish Book 1 of the first AP.

Now we're back to 5e and everyone is loving it. Rules are simpler, DM rulings are easy and make the game go by quickly, and all the characters are roughly balanced so no one feels outdone by anyone else (while everyone still feels unique in their character concept).

[Zippdementia]

I believe it is the perfect culmination of the entire history of DnD in the best possible mixture of rules and flexibility, allowing for both tactical gameplay and imagination. I don’t want to see edition 6. I just want 5 to keep getting better and keep getting adventures.

[Speely]

I believe it is the perfect culmination of the entire history of DnD in the best possible mixture of rules and flexibility, allowing for both tactical gameplay and imagination. I don’t want to see edition 6. I just want 5 to keep getting better and keep getting adventures.

This is how I feel as well. The game runs so smoothly, and it's ripe for iteration in lots of ways. Rather than 6e, I am looking forward to new settings and more content for 5e. They nailed it.

[Waazraath]

Yes it is. I'm playing with folks who wouldn't have enjoyed 3.5 (too much system mastery required for their taste); the old 3.5 optimizers crowd also loves 5e, and to try out new things; and the people who played 3.5 despite disliking the rules heavy approach, are enjoying the game even more. Everybody wins.

[2D8HP]

5e is my favorite version of D&D to play at first level, and most of my 5e PC's have survived to reach second level which is a fun novelty!
.
AFAICT, the main difference between them is that 5e is a little easier to start as a new player because you don't have to select a Feat to play a Fighter.

3e was a radical re-design that either by accident or intent rewards "system mastery" at the expense of new players learning the game, and I've seen some statements by co "lead creator" of 5e, Mike Mearls that they very deliberately wanted to lower the barriers of entry to new players, and make it "more like the '80's and '90's".

I know it's hard for the Forum to believe (since so many Playgrounders started with 3e), but a whole lot of old TSR "Basic Sets" were sold, more than any "splat books".

Having "optimization" make a big difference is a barrier to new players, and 5e deliberately toned it down.

Ultimately Hasbro would rather sell millions more Starter Sets and Player's Handbooks to new people, rather than supplements to the same aging fans.

The barriers to start playing 5e are pretty low (except for finding a willing DM) and with the

free Basic rules (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules),

and the

Systems Reference Document (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd)

you have enough for a great game, read 'em, run Lost Mine of Phandelver from the Starter Set, and your pretty good to go!

If you're in Antarctica and can't get the Starter Set

here (https://merricb.com/dungeons-dragons-5e-adventures-by-level/)

is a big list of adventures, some are "pay what you want".

I do think though that 5e (compared to say B/X D&D) is too hard to learn to DM, but I've no ideas on how to make it easier to DM that wouldn't reduce how attractive 5e is to play.

[Finieous]

I do think though that 5e (compared to say B/X D&D) is too hard to learn to DM, but I've no ideas on how to make it easier to DM that wouldn't reduce how attractive 5e is to play.

It's funny -- B/X has long been my favorite edition of D&D, though I started in 1980 with AD&D. I ran a B/X one-shot last week, and we had a great time, but when it was over I realized I wished I'd just run 5e. I spent a lot of time thinking about which resolution tool to pull out of the B/X tool box. Roll 1d6? Ability roll? Percentile roll? Reaction roll? A universal task resolution mechanic has a lot going for it. For DMs, but also for players who maybe want to have a better idea of what their characters' capabilities actually are.

If 5e is "rulings, not rules," B/X is "rulings, no rules." :smallbiggrin:

I will say this: With Basic, B/X explicitly starts in the dungeon and I think that's extremely helpful in learning to DM.

[JNAProductions]

I believe it is the perfect culmination of the entire history of DnD in the best possible mixture of rules and flexibility, allowing for both tactical gameplay and imagination. I don’t want to see edition 6. I just want 5 to keep getting better and keep getting adventures.

I disagree with that. It's a great game and I love it, but it's FAR from perfect.

[Christopher K.]

I definitely don't believe it's the "perfect" incarnation of D&D, but I have a lot of love for 5E as a flexible, modular toolkit for telling the sort of stories I want to. I'd admittedly enjoy a bit more tactical crunch from time to time in the system, but the 4E books in my library can fill that need, and when I design monsters for my home games I typically look to 4E's monster roles for insight into mechanical niches.

[Sception]

I wouldn't call 5e 'perfect'. There are some things I liked better about original D&D, 2e, 3.5, even 4e. In particular, I wish 5e had a larger development staff able to support a bit more content, and that the designers weren't as allergic to new classes / didn't implement so many character ideas as subclasses, and that there were better implementation of pet class character concepts, that more settings were getting targeted support. The last may, finally, be changing, but even there I wish they weren't trying to make every setting work with the same cosmology in some sort of overarching consistent supersetting, rather than just letting each be their own thing.

Still though, overall it's my favorite version of D&D so far as well, and in particular I think it has the strongest and most enjoyable core, even if I prefer 3e's "anything and everything" attitude towards splat content.

[MrStabby]

The more I play 5th edition d&d the more I realise there are things I think are wrong with it. The more I play any other rpg the more I appreciate that it got some things so right.

The main thing is that it is FUN. It does this so well.

[sophontteks]

Few hold a candle to 5e IMO. They went back to their RPG roots, where roleplay and creativity is king. Yet they also took in lessons learned from the other, bloated, editions. The final result is streamlined, flexible, yet also rich in features. I never feel very limited despite the simplicity.

Its like, I can create awesome, unique characters without even multiclassing. I never worry about my choices making my character too weak. There are less options, but they are all good options. All the time I save not worrying about which classes and subclasses are too weak, or which feats I need, I put that time into better character design. Background, motivations, quirks, etc.

3e was for PC rpgs.
4e was a pen and paper WoW.
5e is actually a pen and paper RPG.

[KorvinStarmast]

We had a brief raid last night, low level game. I am beginning to like the 5e adv/disadv set up more and more (even though there is some quirky stuff in there ...)

Our party Paladin was give advantage on an intimidation check without having to ask for it.
Why?
We have a great DM, and it was sorta obvious, but it seemed to catch the player off guard. (Our set up in roll20 always rolls two d20's: you use the left one unless you have advantage/disadvantage. That option speeds up play IME).

The result was 9/16 as he finished his role play of intimidating an enemy rogue that we had dragged back to a safe area (inert body) whereupon the Paladin had used his skills to return this NPC to >1 HP.
Initially, the player groaned: "Aw man, did I fail that?"
The DM said "The 16 is a pass."
Player goes "Huh?"
DM: "I figured circumstantial advantage was pretty obvious. You are armored and armed, alive, and leaning over him. You just brought him back to life after the Ranger {Korvin} had filled him with arrows. There's a crowd of people around him who are from a different faction than he is, in this city. His two compatriots are lying a few feet from him, dead, also filled with Ranger Arrows. So yeah, Intimidation check, circumstantial advantage, if you want to know how I arrived at your roll having advantage"
Paladin brightens up: "Cool." :smallsmile:

Rules as Fun: we did a chase scene right out of the DMG chase scene, DMG p 252, using Theater of the Mind. It was immense fun. I didn't once look at my char sheet, just said what I did and rolled when called for. The complications threw in some random "oops!" to the chase that added to the fun.

There are still a few things I am not so keen on with 5e:

In the DMG chase scene rules, you can recover an exhaustion level with a short or long rest. I like that. (In regular exhaustion rules, one level per long rest. The 2d level spell lesser restoration does not recover one exh level). Exhaustion is a crap mechanic that is overly penal at low levels. I'd like to see a single level being removed with LR, all with GR, and a short rest or long rest recovering one level of exh. The base model of this game is designed on the 6-8 encounters, two short rest framework, so resources do matter, when to rest does matter, and exhaustion just stands out as badly integrated. The idea behind the mechanic I like a lot: but how it was implemented stinks. Basically makes Beserker untenable.

Saving throws go by stat block, not level. I am still not wholly on board with this edition's versions of saving throws, having been raised o OD&D/1eAD&D/BECMI/BX version of saves going up with level on the save tables. They almost got it right ... but it feels kinda weird at higher levels ...

IMO: feats needed one more scrub before going final.

[Sception]

For all people rip on the combat role thing 4e took from WoW and other MMOs, that was a concept that MMOs themselves took and expanded from D&D. That 'core party' of fighter, magic user, healer, rogue was a D&D concept first, and I think there's a lot to be said for making sure every character class has a concrete method of contributing to group combat encounters (the most cooperative and gamey element of this cooperative storytelling game), in a way that emphasized teamwork. Granted, it took things too far in that regard, with just way too much crunch that made it utterly impossible to reasonably balance what options there were. And they never did the real work of fully defining the roles themselves. Like, defender and healer were pretty well defined in terms of what they were supposed to contribute and how, and as such there's pretty much no bad classes in 4e that fell into those categories, but they never worked out exactly how much damage the 'striker' is supposed to be doing, so those classes are all over the map, ranging from 'cool but largely worthless' assassins & vampires up to 'stupidly overgunned killing machines' on the opposite ends. And it felt like they never even actually figured out what 'controllers' were actually supposed to be doing.

The end result was just an absolute mess, even before you get into how cluttered the feats were with garbage and how much system mastery was required to wade through that bloat, or how non combat skill use and role playing were discouraged, not because there was less content there than with any other system, if anything the 'skill encounter' system was more rhobust than 5e, but rather because of how those systems were positively dwarfed by the overinvolved combat system, and especially how character options related to those systems were dwarfed by combat crunch character options.

Still, I appreciated the emphasis on teamwork in what is, again, a cooperative game. It's something I somewhat miss in 5e, where characters are much more self contained, and party synergy less overt, with weaker healing, tanky characters that tend to lack any mechanical stickiness, generally more subdued buffs, little to no action trading, etc. Don't get me wrong, the game is much better, and much as I might miss some aspects of 4e it's a game I can never go back to (in part because the online character builder is no longer supported, and that was not a game you could reasonably make characters for with only pen & paper to work with), where as I could play 5e near about endlessly. Ah, well.

I don't know. Some days I just feel nostalgic for the radiant mafia, or rube goldberg builds like the black hole.

[opaopajr]

It's my favorite D&D version from WotC. And it's the only WotC version I'll bother to play anymore. This is, in a way, high praise. :smallsmile:

The chassis is solid enough to tinker with, for when I want to gut the game to a homebrew of my liking, too. Considering how many features I don't like, this can take some work. But at least it doesn't feel like one of the more difficult RPG Jengas, where you pull out the wrong piece and the whole framework comes crashing down.

[Eric Diaz]

Same here, my favorite edition of D&D except, MAYBE, for Basic.

[sophontteks]

Long quote.
Its because D&D created these roles.
4e replicated an MMO and MMOs are just ripoff d&d. That makes 4e a ripoff of a ripoff of itself.
At least that's how I felt (and how I feel doesn't nessesarily reflect reality).

I think roles are still very big in 5e. The roles are just not MMO roles.
Its not healer, tank, dps, flanker
Its utility caster, party face, survivalist, meat shield, skill monkey.

Healing has always been weak in d&d. I like that. Wounds are real. They aren't just magiced away every round.

[Sinon]

Same here, my favorite edition of D&D except, MAYBE, for Basic.I seem to recall a red box and a Keep, somewhere out on the Borderlands.

Yes, in many ways this edition manages to capture that spirit, and provids enough rules without creating a mire of technicalities.

[No brains]

5e Is my favorite ed of D&D because I think this is the first happy thread I've seen on any edition.:smalltongue:

[_Zoot_]

As someone who has played rather a lot of Pathfinder, 3.5 and a little 4th Ed (and didn't care for that one at all, let me tell you a thing). I've been interested in 5th Ed. What are the main differences, especially in magic ( I normally play mages) and higher level play? Is there the same amount of equipment and magic items?

I've largely ignored 5th Ed, just because I was in the middle of games and not looking to change over, but a friend of mine recently took it up, and I find that I don't have much comparison to work with.

People on this thread seem like they'd be in a good position to convince me to try it :smalltongue:

[sophontteks]

As someone who has played rather a lot of Pathfinder, 3.5 and a little 4th Ed (and didn't care for that one at all, let me tell you a thing). I've been interested in 5th Ed. What are the main differences, especially in magic ( I normally play mages) and higher level play? Is there the same amount of equipment and magic items?

I've largely ignored 5th Ed, just because I was in the middle of games and not looking to change over, but a friend of mine recently took it up, and I find that I don't have much comparison to work with.

People on this thread seem like they'd be in a good position to convince me to try it :smalltongue:

-The focus is less on stats and optimizing and more on roleplay.
-Backgrounds were added and provide a great base for roleplay.
-Every class is well made from 1 to 20. No need to multiclass.
-Fighters and mages are balanced.
-There is no bloat.
-Many of the things that required feats you can just do.
-Its actually pen and paper.
-Adding a bunch of numbers has been done away with.
-Everything is very streamlined.

Compared to pathfinder and 3.5. Less math, better balance, roleplaying over optimizing. You won't be spending time adding numbers anymore.

Compared to 4e. Its an RPG again, not an MMO.

[_Zoot_]

-The focus is less on stats and optimizing and more on roleplay.
-Backgrounds were added and provide a great base for roleplay.
-Every class is well made from 1 to 20. No need to multiclass.
-Fighters and mages are balanced.
-There is no bloat.
-Many of the things that required feats you can just do.
-Its actually pen and paper.
-Adding a bunch of numbers has been done away with.
-Everything is very streamlined.

Compared to Pathfinder and 3.5. Less math, better balance, roleplaying over optimizing. You won't be spending time adding numbers anymore.

Compared to 4e. It's an RPG again, not an MMO.

That does seem like a pretty good sell actually, I've always enjoyed the roleplaying bit more than the 'maths for win' part (I was never any good at that anyway!).

When you say that mages and fighters are balanced, how do they do that? And have they given back mages utility spells? Because that killed me in 4th Ed., I didn't want a mage who could only fight, I want a wizard who can summon up illusions, portals and unseen servants, even though none of those help much in a firefight!

[Smitty Wesson]

As someone who has played rather a lot of Pathfinder, 3.5 and a little 4th Ed (and didn't care for that one at all, let me tell you a thing). I've been interested in 5th Ed. What are the main differences, especially in magic ( I normally play mages) and higher level play? Is there the same amount of equipment and magic items?

I've largely ignored 5th Ed, just because I was in the middle of games and not looking to change over, but a friend of mine recently took it up, and I find that I don't have much comparison to work with.

People on this thread seem like they'd be in a good position to convince me to try it :smalltongue:

The big change for spellcasters is that Concentration works differently. You can only have one Concentration spell active at once, which means that stacking buffs isn't so much a thing.

Spell save DCs are the same for all of your spells, level of the spell doesn't factor in.

Multiclassed spellcasters get spell slots based on total level in all casting classes, even if they do not have spells for some of those slots. (Lower-level spells can be cast at a higher level to power them up, metamagic-style).

It's fairly easy to have armor and weapons and to still cast magic.

Cantrips are now spells that you can cast an unlimited number of times, and that power up as you level.



When you say that mages and fighters are balanced, how do they do that? And have they given back mages utility spells? Because that killed me in 4th Ed., I didn't want a mage who could only fight, I want a wizard who can summon up illusions, portals and unseen servants, even though none of those help much in a firefight!

All of the utility spells exist in some form! The spell list looks a LOT like the 3.5 spell list in terms of what spells are included - just be sure to read them carefully so that you don't misremember them as working like they did in 3.5, they've all been re-written from the ground up.

Also, martials got balanced better by becoming the lords of action economy. Rogues and Fighters can do more stuff per turn, which was always one of the most powerful things in 3.5, so now martial/mundane classes get that feature as their signature thing.

[Tanarii]

Welcome to 5e.
It’s my favorite version of D&d so far.
I've said this about every edition of D&D when it was live. I'm always happy about the changes.

I did have an opportunity to go back and play BECMI, or at least B and low level E, in the old school dungeoneering and then some hex crawling ways, while 4e was live. I never really played it that way back in the day. It was a lot of fun and a good change up, in a brutal kinda way. That's the only time I've ever been able to go backwards to an older edition without feeling like I was missing all the more modern changes in the current edition. It's still a good edition for that particular style of play.

[sophontteks]

On spells. They also merged many spells. There is no cure light wounds, cure moderate, etc. Its all one first level spell now, and that first level spell gets stronger when you cast it higher. Something any caster can do without feats.

Another example is that undead don't have their own versions of charms and such. Charm spells now work on many undead, so there is no reason for two essentially identical spells.

And finally things like mass charm and mass hold person. They are just charm and hold person. You upcast them and get additional targets per level you upcast.

[pdegan2814]

I had played some in the days of 1st Edition AD&D, and the beginning of 2nd Edition. Then I was away from the game for quite some time, until just a few years ago when I stepped back in with 5th Edition. I was very impressed with how easy it was to get going. The math for 5e has been streamlined but not to the point of not being meaningful. Once you have your 6 ability scores and proficiency bonus, figuring out the math is pretty simple. Having gone back and taken a look at the PHB for 3.5, 4e and the Core book for Pathfinder, they looked like they would scare a newbie away from the table. I think the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic is a fantastic way to simplify a lot of the bonus/penalty mechanics. Someone mentioned how 5e's streamlined rules give a lot of power back to the DM to decide how to adjudicate things. I agree with that, but 5e also set up a really good framework for the DM to use when making those decisions.

[Unoriginal]

5e is not perfect, and it'll never be.

It is, however, a goddamn amazing RPG as a whole.

Certainly my favorite version of D&D.

[Knaight]

Had I only played other editions of D&D, I'd be on the 5e is great train. It's by far my favorite edition, it does a lot of little things that are genuinely pretty cool, and it's very much functional.

With a broader background though, it comes across as more okay than anything. Little things that are genuinely pretty cool crop up all over the place, games being very much functional crops up all over the place, and games that avoid the things that annoy me about other D&D editions and propel 5e to my favorite are also all over the place.

[mgshamster]

There are plenty of things I enjoy in other editions, but every time I go back to them I find myself preferring the simpler chargen of 5e, or the simpler resolution mechanics.

Even when I run into things that annoy me in 5e, I still find it's a bit better as a whole that previous editions - mostly because of all the other stuff.

There are other games I enjoy for the same reason - Dungeon World (and other PbtA) games. Easy chargen, simpler resolution meccanics, and a good story-telling platform. And there are even aspects of PbtA games I bring into 5e to make it better on a whole. Notably the "Tell me about X and how it exists in this world" style of player engagement for world building.

Two things I wish 5e had more of:

1) Motivations as a base part of character building. It could be either in the background section, right along with Personality Traits, et al. (although Bond is fairly close), or even a full on mehanic.

2) Character growth is terms of who the person is (not abilities, powers, levels, etc). In other words, something that shows the character is developing over their lifetime, for better or worse. 5e does a fairly decent job getting people to think about who their character is, and I've seen some wonderful PCs in these past few years. But it often seems like once someone makes a character's personality, it never changes. The same quirks they had at level 1 is still true at level 20. The same flaw they had in the beginning is still true. We never really go back and look at our PCs as a person and see how they've developed over the course of the Adventure (s).

One idea is to make it so every few levels (say, 2-5 levels or so) you look at your Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, or Flaws (or Motivations!) and you add, remove, or change one or more of them (but can't have fewer than one in each category). This should have a caveat that the addition, removal, or change should be related to the PCs' experiences thus far. I think that would show character development over time and show true growth over the course of gameplay as the adventure impacts the PCs lives.

[Tanarii]

With a broader background though, it comes across as more okay than anything.
I'm curious what the broader background is.

Before I played 5e, in edition addition to all editions of D&D, I'd also played several different games by Palladium, Shadowrun 2e, Runequest (I think 2e), Warhammer RPG 2e, Gamma World, and of course Dragonroar! I've got some nostalgia for Robotech in particular, but it's not a good system. None of them really were. Otoh in retrospect AD&D wasn't either. :smallamused:

More recently I've read through Dungeon Crawl Classics, Amber DRPG / Lords of Glamor, Warhammer FRPG, Warhammer Dark Heresies & Only War, Burning Wheel / Torchbearer, AW / DW, and even took a stab a LoFP. Some of them looked interesting enough for a few one offs, especially AW and DCC. Others were just hot garbage by designers who don't understand Roleplaying, yet still somehow manage to be Roleplaying elitists, like Amber's Wujcik and Burning Wheel's Crane.

[ZorroGames]

5e is not perfect, and it'll never be.

It is, however, a goddamn amazing RPG as a whole.

Certainly my favorite version of D&D.

Yes.

And having started with the arcane structure of “White Box” 0D&D I find it great to start people playing, quite (to me) what 0D&D/AD&D meant to be.

After I played it I sold off or have boxed to sell all my previous edition materials (except for Egyptian themed sources) other than my first 0D&D boxed set (with the missing pages) plus supplements because it brought me from miniatures war games (still my first love) to FRPG/SFRPG madness. No rational reason to keep that set except emotion, I admit it.

Yeah, an unrepentant grognard.

[strangebloke]

Had I only played other editions of D&D, I'd be on the 5e is great train. It's by far my favorite edition, it does a lot of little things that are genuinely pretty cool, and it's very much functional.

With a broader background though, it comes across as more okay than anything. Little things that are genuinely pretty cool crop up all over the place, games being very much functional crops up all over the place, and games that avoid the things that annoy me about other D&D editions and propel 5e to my favorite are also all over the place.

Well, I can't confess to having a broad background (Fate, Amber, 3.5, 5e, paranoia, dread, and I've spectated exalted and Dresden Files RPG), but my friends who have a wide range of experience agree with me on this. I wouldn't say 5e is the best system for any one thing but I think it does a certain set of things very well.

Things I've heard experienced players/DMs laud 5e for:

Lots of content that makes running the game easier. The monsters, variant rule sets, and guidance on arbitrating actions are all useful. A fun combat encounter takes minutes to set up, and the source books have an incredible breadth of material, covering everything from cosmic horror to high fantasy to fantasy noir. (all with DND's cartoony/pulpy spin, of course) I'm also a big fan of the variant rules, since that cuts down on the homebrew I have to do. It's easy to say: "We're using gritty realism rest rules as outlined in the DMG."
The class system. Yes, there are advantages to going classless, but classes help new players a lot by limiting the amount of rules that they need to learn in order to make a unique character. Fate might be simpler to learn, but differentiating your character is harder. Pathfinder allows for extreme differentiation, but requires an absurd level of system mastery. (yes I know that PF is a game with classes, but generally speaking the generic options your character takes are as defining as the class they take.)
Magic Loot! Seriously, this is a huge draw to dnd. The game is so tightly balanced that magic loot (which imbalances the game) feels awesome. See also point 1, for how adding magic loot into your game is super easy in dnd.


Now, I will say, as a fly in the ointment, that 5e's rules are a bit poorly explained and that there are too many exceptions.

For example, rather than a special rule saying that bonus action spells can't be cast in the same turn as a spell, each bonus action spell should just say "When you take an action other than the cast a spell action, as a bonus action you can [the text of misty step]"

[Amdy_vill]

Coming off of 3.5, 5e is a big change. 3.5 really maxed out the whole 'having a rule for everything'. I feel like 5e it puts the game back in the hands of the DM. Its like, here's some rules, the rest is DMs call. Theoretically one would think that there's gonna be more DMs calls for 5e, since, well, there's not a lotta rules. In practice however, even though 3.5 had so many rules, it created more DM calls, as the DMs find themselves making calls on all Those rules. I realized there's always gonna be DMs calls, cuz of game design, so might as well tighten it up and simplify the game. It makes for more playing time and less deliberation.
In regard to 3.5 vs 5e, another big thing (probably only in my game) that makes for more playing time and less talk is the 'no more crazy spell buffing'. Higher level chars in my 3.5 group would have like 5 or 10 different spell buffs cast on every char, which would take hours, literally. 5e lets you buff a bit, so you can have 'some' fun with it.
So, I've calculated that the simple rules and no crazy buffs gives us probably %50 more playing time, which is awesome. I'm almost done with Tryanny of dragons campaign, it took one year. I can't imagine how long it would have taken to play that in 3.5, maybe twice as long.
My players still enjoy playing their chars. I was concerned that the lack of 'options' (prestige classes, etc, of 3.5) would make it boring to play the same guy at higher levels. Not the case however, they're good. Still, I lost half of my players on the switch from 3.5 to 5e, stubborn old birds (and a few youngins). Luckily, the crew is large....

every edition is good for something 5e is good for story telling. i would suggested familiarizing yourself if the rules and then not being afraid to add. but start small and weak, you can always increases power but players don't like it when you take there toys away.

[Scripten]

I'm curious what the broader background is.

Before I played 5e, in edition addition to all editions of D&D, I'd also played several different games by Palladium, Shadowrun 2e, Runequest (I think 2e), Warhammer RPG 2e, Gamma World, and of course Dragonroar! I've got some nostalgia for Robotech in particular, but it's not a good system. None of them really were. Otoh in retrospect AD&D wasn't either. :smallamused:

More recently I've read through Dungeon Crawl Classics, Amber DRPG / Lords of Glamor, Warhammer FRPG, Warhammer Dark Heresies & Only War, Burning Wheel / Torchbearer, AW / DW, and even took a stab a LoFP. Some of them looked interesting enough for a few one offs, especially AW and DCC. Others were just hot garbage by designers who don't understand Roleplaying, yet still somehow manage to be Roleplaying elitists, like Amber's Wujcik and Burning Wheel's Crane.

I really don't want to be the guy going around proselytizing his pet system to everyone, but I would really recommend taking a look at Shadow of the Demon Lord. It's very 5e-esque (and designed by one of 5e's writers) but has a darker tone and different flavor. Its default setting is a little more rigorously defined than 5e's, as well, which may or may not be a positive.

Anyway, the reason I bring it up at all is because it does a few things better than 5e (IMO). The magic/spell chapters' organization is far better, though some of the casting rules are less intuitive than 5e for my group. I also like the way initiative is handled, though a few of my players don't like having to decide turn order rather than just rolling. The lack of an alignment system is a net positive, especially since the system comes with Insanity and Corruption mechanics that feel more interesting and fun to me. The Boons and Banes system is roughly on par with Advantage/Disadvantage and is, mathematically, slightly less swingy and more granular. The replacement for Ability Scores, skills, the class progression system, and the lower HP numbers are more up my alley, too, but that's completely subjective.

So there are definitely things that I like in a "fixed" 5e that would require killing some sacred cows and making poor business choices. After all, if most of us here saw a D&D edition with no alignment system, it'd be great, but I would bet WotC would see a sales hit from it.

[2D8HP]

...and of course Dragonroar! .


"of course Dragonroar!" :amused:

That the one game on your list to merit an "of course", is the one that I've never heard of cracks me up, but that it came with a cassette tape in a boxed set...

...that is AWESOME!


Shadow of the Demon Lord....


I've seen SotDL on the shelf, and I've thought about picking it up, is it simple and/or entertaining to read?

[Scripten]

I've seen SotDL on the shelf, and I've thought about picking it up, is it simple and/or entertaining to read?

I would say "Yes", though it's roughly comparable to 5e in terms of crunch. The progression system is utterly fantastic for a (mostly) class-based game. Characters start at Level 0, with no class, and play one adventure before taking on their first class selection, The Novice Path. There are only four of those and even the Magician is fairly simple to play. Much easier than equivalent 5e classes, IMO. Several adventures/levels later and you pick from the Expert Path list, which is slightly larger and more distinct. Finally, as you enter the last third or so of a campaign, you pick from the fairly giant Master Path list to further specialize your character.

Hence, you build your character from three Paths (I don't believe there are any prerequisites, so you can go with literally any combination you like) that you choose as you progress in your adventure. From my experience, it makes character creation more fluid and introduces players to the complexity of their Paths more gently than does 5e. Of course, there is the rather adult flavor of the system to consider and the focus on horror. If those aren't your can of (spooky) worms, then it may not appeal.

[mgshamster]

Characters start at Level 0, with no class, and play one adventure before taking on their first class selection, The Novice Path. There are only four of those and even the Magician is fairly simple to play. Much easier than equivalent 5e classes, IMO. Several adventures/levels later and you pick from the Expert Path list, which is slightly larger and more distinct. Finally, as you enter the last third or so of a campaign, you pick from the fairly giant Master Path list to further specialize your character.

Hence, you build your character from three Paths (I don't believe there are any prerequisites, so you can go with literally any combination you like) that you choose as you progress in your adventure. From my experience, it makes character creation more fluid and introduces players to the complexity of their Paths more gently than does 5e. Of course, there is the rather adult flavor of the system to consider and the focus on horror. If those aren't your can of (spooky) worms, then it may not appeal.

Aaaand I'm sold. That sounds exactly like the kind of system I've been yearning for for some time now.

[Snails]

Things I recommend about about 5e:

(1) Designers chose to err on the side of having fewer rules, focusing on the ones that really get used all the time. (I do not have a problem with any particular 3.5/Pathfinder rules -- most of them I like a lot; but the shear weight of rules was too much for casual players.)

(2) "Flat math" is a broadly baked into the mechanics. The simple meaning is to keep ACs and ABs within a not too large range. But in detail, 5e prefers, for example, Resistance (half damage) instead of Immunity ("Sorry, you have the wrong weapon/spell -- zero damage for you.") . Both PCs and monsters may be less effective as a result of the tactical situation, but rarely are stuck being truly useless.

(3) Enough customization, not lots and lots of customization. For example, PCs can progress with some meaningful choices in their development without fuss -- it is easy to make a "good enough" choice. For example, the spell preparation rules and spell upslotting makes it much easier for both player and DM to choose "good enough" spells -- you don't see spell slots simply wasted because someone hemmed and hawed and guessed wrong.

[Derpaligtr]

I'm like, 75% happy with 5e so it's very close to how haopy I was with 4e (83.7%) amd waaaay more than I was with 3e (42.9%).

I think 5e has a long way to go before it could be called a great system, but it's damn good.

[strangebloke]

I'm like, 75% happy with 5e so it's very close to how haopy I was with 4e (83.7%) amd waaaay more than I was with 3e (42.9%).

I think 5e has a long way to go before it could be called a great system, but it's damn good.

those are some spectacularly specific numbers.

[ZorroGames]

those are some spectacularly specific numbers.

Or sarcasm?

Just saying...

[Willie the Duck]

those are some spectacularly specific numbers.

Oh, come on strangebloke, you know that 92.18765% of all stated statistics are made up.

[strangebloke]

Or sarcasm?

Just saying...


Oh, come on strangebloke, you know that 92.18765% of all stated statistics are made up.

I know. IS JOKE. My reply also IS JOKE.

[Derpaligtr]

those are some spectacularly specific numbers.

Honestly, they're more or less legit. I was being facetious, but not all that much.

Less than half of 3e makes me happy, about 75% of 5e makes me happy, and I'm a tad bit more happy about 4e and 5e.

[ZorroGames]

Honestly, they're more or less legit. I was being facetious, but not all that much.

Less than half of 3e makes me happy, about 75% of 5e makes me happy, and I'm a tad bit more happy about 4e and 5e.

So your numbers were precise and accurate! 🤣

[EvilAnagram]

Or sarcasm?

Just saying...
I'm interested in this comment. In what way would that be sarcastic? Even using loosey goosey definitions like "bitingly witty" (as opposed to a specific humor construct utilizing irony) how would that be sarcastic?

[Derpaligtr]

So your numbers were precise and accurate! 🤣

Darn straight!


I'm interested in this comment. In what way would that be sarcastic? Even using loosey goosey definitions like "bitingly witty" (as opposed to a specific humor construct utilizing irony) how would that be sarcastic?

People mistake sarcasm all the time.

They mean flippant/facetious.

[Willie the Duck]

People mistake sarcasm all the time.

They mean flippant/facetious.

How ironic, it is very unique that way. We could call them out on the misuse of terminology, but the point is moot.
Oh god, now I need a shower!




:smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

I'm curious what the broader background is.

Before I played 5e, in edition addition to all editions of D&D, I'd also played several different games by Palladium, Shadowrun 2e, Runequest (I think 2e), Warhammer RPG 2e, Gamma World, and of course Dragonroar! I've got some nostalgia for Robotech in particular, but it's not a good system. None of them really were. Otoh in retrospect AD&D wasn't either. :smallamused:

More recently I've read through Dungeon Crawl Classics, Amber DRPG / Lords of Glamor, Warhammer FRPG, Warhammer Dark Heresies & Only War, Burning Wheel / Torchbearer, AW / DW, and even took a stab a LoFP. Some of them looked interesting enough for a few one offs, especially AW and DCC. Others were just hot garbage by designers who don't understand Roleplaying, yet still somehow manage to be Roleplaying elitists, like Amber's Wujcik and Burning Wheel's Crane.

I will say that some of those (starting with basically everything by Palladium) don't make the cut for okay. As for the background:

The really pivotal game is Fudge, which most people know through Fate (which made some fairly drastic changes; starting with how Fudge is a simmy game which uses modifiers and Fate is more narrative and introduced Aspects), with its 0 centered universal trait ladder and attached scale mechanic - I learned it early, it set expectations for elegance and cool things, etc. Shadowrun 4e makes the okay list, with a pretty good example of some really cool mechanics (the Glitch mechanic in particular) while also being finicky, I actually really liked Burning Wheel conceptually (though there's no way I'm ever running that). Qin: The Warring States was also an earlyish find, and also did some stuff I quite liked.

Then there's a few more recent finds I was particularly impressed with: Chronica Feudalis; Warrior, Rogue, and Mage (for that D&D itch); Microscope, ORE games (Reign, Nemesis, Godlike), and Ubiquity games (Hollow Earth Expedition, All For One, Desolation). I also have a soft spot for GURPS, less because I actually like the system and more because I respect it for being so good at what it does and adore the well researched setting books. There's others as well, these are highlights.

Given that background D&D 5e doesn't really stand out. It's very much a functional game, it has some cool parts, and for a product made by professional designers that came out of a professional publisher it's respectable. I'm totally willing to play it, I'll GM it for a group that really wants to play it in particular, but it's not in my top 5. Or 10. Or 20.

It's also not in my bottom 5, 10, or 20, even if I only allow in professionally published works with professional game designers behind them, and even if I count product lines as conservatively as possible (e.g. the entire World of Darkness gets counted as one game, Palladium's house system gets counted as one game, etc.).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there's a disconnect between those who prefer to have lots of games, each covering a small slice of their preferences very well, and those (like myself), who have neither time, energy, nor spare mental capacity (nor the type of friend group) required for that. Instead, I'd prefer one system that does 90% of what I want and doesn't fall apart if I mod it to do the other 10%. Even if it's not the best at any individual thing, as long as it's good enough, it saves the massive effort needed to find the other systems (including wading through the dross that's out there), learn them, and then find a group of people who also want to play that game. What I really want is a system that mostly gets out of the way, providing support/tools when I want it but not dictating a world or forcing a particular philosophy of gaming down my throat. The game system shouldn't be the spice, IMO. It's the base ingredients, to which the group adds their own flavors.

It's network effects, game edition.

[Knaight]

I think there's a disconnect between those who prefer to have lots of games, each covering a small slice of their preferences very well, and those (like myself), who have neither time, energy, nor spare mental capacity (nor the type of friend group) required for that. Instead, I'd prefer one system that does 90% of what I want and doesn't fall apart if I mod it to do the other 10%.
I don't think it's a clean distinction. Speaking personally, I like playing lots of games - but I also have a central system I know far better than the others, that I'll often default to and that I've probably put the majority of my gaming time into.

D&D doesn't fit me at all for that though, partially because I also favor shorter and more varied campaigns. Being locked into one genre with that primary system wouldn't work for me at all, and it was basically inevitable that whatever ended up there was going to be a generic. It happened to be Fudge, but had I found, say, Open d6 first it could easily have been that instead.

That illustrates another disconnect though, in this case related to lots of campaigns, characters, etc. I know of and internet-know people who've been playing the same campaign for over a decade (over two decades, in one case). That sounds downright miserable to me, but they clearly have a lot of fun, and the sort of system you'd want to play one game for 20 years is very different than the sort of system you'd want to play a bunch of games that are 40 sessions at the longest and likely somewhere in the teens - let alone what I'm currently doing, which is just a bunch of one shots.


It's network effects, game edition.
As I've been saying for years, D&D's biggest advantages are network effects and brand recognition, and these advantages have been there since at least the early 80's. It's not a massive success due to being better than everything else, it's a massive success because feedback loops keep it afloat as long as it is at least decent, and it's consistently at least decent.

[strangebloke]

That illustrates another disconnect though, in this case related to lots of campaigns, characters, etc. I know of and internet-know people who've been playing the same campaign for over a decade (over two decades, in one case). That sounds downright miserable to me, but they clearly have a lot of fun, and the sort of system you'd want to play one game for 20 years is very different than the sort of system you'd want to play a bunch of games that are 40 sessions at the longest and likely somewhere in the teens - let alone what I'm currently doing, which is just a bunch of one shots.
I mean, in literary terms, DND is a long series of pulpy novels, whereas it sounds like you're more into short stories.

I can easily see not being into DND's admittedly rather narrow genre.

But we're also talking in objective terms here. "Good" as opposed to "Bad." I think, objectively, DND is a 'good' system in that it's functional, accessible, easy to run, and is pretty complete within its narrow focus.


As I've been saying for years, D&D's biggest advantages are network effects and brand recognition, and these advantages have been there since at least the early 80's. It's not a massive success due to being better than everything else, it's a massive success because feedback loops keep it afloat as long as it is at least decent, and it's consistently at least decent.

Oh, for sure. The thing is, though, that while a lot of people complain about how narrow DND is, I think it's mostly successful because of it's narrow focus. If someone invites you to a game of Fate, you have actually very little idea of what you're being invited to.

For the same reason, bunnies and burrows has pretty great brand recognition. I've met people who know what it is, but don't know what GURPS is.

[Knaight]

I mean, in literary terms, DND is a long series of pulpy novels, whereas it sounds like you're more into short stories.

I can easily see not being into DND's admittedly rather narrow genre.

But we're also talking in objective terms here. "Good" as opposed to "Bad." I think, objectively, DND is a 'good' system in that it's functional, accessible, easy to run, and is pretty complete within its narrow focus.
What you're defining as "good" here I'd put down as just "okay". Functional, accessible, easy to run, covers it's focus decently thoroughly - that's a very common collection of traits, particularly given the standards for "easy to run" and "accessible" being used here (it's still a 900 page set of core rules, there's still a fair amount of system prep). That's a bit of a baseline standard, for all that games come in under it. 5e does add in a few points above that standard, but again coming up with a few cool quirks is common; even the string of fantasy heartbreakers often manage that much.

That said, I'm also not using a boolean here. If we only have "good" and "bad" as boxes, ignoring both the middle ground and the extremes, then yeah, D&D goes in the good box. Every edition gets slotted in that box easily, and 5e gets slotted in a bit more easily than most.


For the same reason, bunnies and burrows has pretty great brand recognition. I've met people who know what it is, but don't know what GURPS is.
A memorable name counts for a lot. "Bunnies and burrows" calls attention to itself in a number of ways, particularly with Watership Down being the classic it is. GURPS is basically your standard issue easily pronounceable acronym game, title-wise. There's a lot of those and they blur together.

[strangebloke]

(it's still a 900 page set of core rules, there's still a fair amount of system prep).


I agree with most of what you say, however, I would clarify this point, because I see people say this and although it is technically correct, it bugs me.


The core books contain 900 pages.
The OGL contains 400 pages omitting most of the optional/variant rules.
Of that only 100 pages are actually rules. Spells cover 90 pages and everything else is monsters, NPCs, and magic items.
Of that any individual gamer actually cares about is more like 20-30 pages. They don't need to know what the Sage background does if they aren't taking that background.


Everything outside of the 100-200 pages of rules is basically free material for DMs to work with. The predefined monsters and loot save DMs from a lot of work, so they actually make the game more accessible. And the OGL is free. That's really what I was getting at when I said that the game was hyper-accessible. Anybody can pick it up for free, and unlike Fate or similar, it really gives you pretty much everything you need.

[Derpaligtr]

I agree with most of what you say, however, I would clarify this point, because I see people say this and although it is technically correct, it bugs me.


The core books contain 900 pages.
The OGL contains 400 pages omitting most of the optional/variant rules.
Of that only 100 pages are actually rules. Spells cover 90 pages and everything else is monsters, NPCs, and magic items.
Of that any individual gamer actually cares about is more like 20-30 pages. They don't need to know what the Sage background does if they aren't taking that background.


Everything outside of the 100-200 pages of rules is basically free material for DMs to work with. The predefined monsters and loot save DMs from a lot of work, so they actually make the game more accessible. And the OGL is free. That's really what I was getting at when I said that the game was hyper-accessible. Anybody can pick it up for free, and unlike Fate or similar, it really gives you pretty much everything you need.

DM material is a pretty important part if you want people to run your games.

If you made things more, rules light, a DM wouldn't need so much help.

[PhoenixPhyre]

DM material is a pretty important part if you want people to run your games.

If you made things more, rules light, a DM wouldn't need so much help.

Or would need more. Because people vary.

[Derpaligtr]

Or would need more. Because people vary.

The hoops you have to jump through in order to set up the CR against your players is nothing short of rules complex.

There is no way people would need more help if you simplified the rules for CR/Monster creation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One other thing that D&D (and 5e especially) does well in terms of accessibility is mindset.

I teach lots of new players how to play. And the idea of the core loop:

* DM describes a scene and asks "what do you do?"
* Player describes an intended action
* DM & player resolve the action
* Repeat

is very simple and intuitive. I don't have to teach a meta-narrative-focused mindset (unlike FATE, etc). I don't have to drill down to very specific technical terms or do calculations (like a lot of point-buy). I didn't have to hammer in a specific setting's baseline (like most WW products). We can just play, and occasionally we roll some dice. Most people are much better role-players than we often give them credit, once there's a motive and an invitation (and an expectation).

I ran an entire 1-shot session with totally new folks with pregen characters and the following mechanical rule intro:

* The basic flow is (see loop above)
* When I ask you to roll something, roll a d20 and add the number I call for from your sheet. Higher is better.
* You can attempt anything, you don't need a specific skill for that. Think of what the character would do.

Everything else came up in play. More work for me, of course, but since the rules are so shallow (meaning so few interlocking, interacting parts), it was quite straight-forward.

We had a 3 hour session where everyone was totally engrossed and they played on their backgrounds, the implied character, and made the game come alive. They voiced their characters (sometimes), they got invested in the story, simple as it was. There was only one short combat, the rest was social and investigation.

[Tanarii]

"of course Dragonroar!" :amused:

That the one game on your list to merit an "of course", is the one that I've never heard of cracks me up, but that it came with a cassette tape in a boxed set...

...that is AWESOME!The "of course" should have been in blue for clarity. I was the first RPG I really played. Other than a 5 minute session getting killed by a trap in a babysitters dungeon about two years earlier. But I don't really expect anyone to recognize it. :smallamused:



The really pivotal game is Fudge, which most people know through Fate (which made some fairly drastic changes; starting with how Fudge is a simmy game which uses modifiers and Fate is more narrative and introduced Aspects), with its 0 centered universal trait ladder and attached scale mechanic - I learned it early, it set expectations for elegance and cool things, etc.
We have very different ideas of okay then. I've heard very little that's good about Fate, and the few times I tried to read the system I could see why. I've always given up in disgust. But it doesn't surprise me at all to find we want different things of games.

Edit: wait, hold up. Are you saying you like fudge because it fixes some of the things fate does wrong? I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the two games exactly here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The hoops you have to jump through in order to set up the CR against your players is nothing short of rules complex.

There is no way people would need more help if you simplified the rules for CR/Monster creation.

Not really, since it's such a wide window of acceptability. Past level 1, you're unlikely to TPK a party (and can always adjust on the fly if necessary). Really, unless you're being obtuse, the encounter-building tables from Xanathar's get you 99% of the way there. And the vast majority of the time, custom monsters are best done by slapping on a new ability onto a pre-existing stat block (or altering one that exists). And very few alterations significantly affect CR.

I wrote a whole guide on this. Fact is, CR matters only in the broadest of senses. It gives an upper bound on the difficulty (with a very few exceptions, like the intellect devourer which punches either way above or way below its CR).

[strangebloke]

DM material is a pretty important part if you want people to run your games.

If you made things more, rules light, a DM wouldn't need so much help.

DISAGREE STRONGLY.

Here's a hypothetical game system: You narrate some things, players narrate the actions of their characters. That's it.

How do you maintain tension? How do you make the game fun? Well, it's not impossible. You narrate things very descriptively and get them really into it. You prepare humorous characters and funny moments, etc. etc.

I've done this. A lot. After 5e it's my most common form of RP that I've run. And it's hard. Every type of player problem you have in DND is magnified a hundredfold. It doesn't require a lot of set-up but you have to be good at running a game in order to make something like this fun.

A rules-lite system like Dread can be very fun... but once again you need to be good at GMing.

DND is a game that even snotty-nosed 12-year olds with negative charisma can run. There's homework, but nothing too bad.

[PhoenixPhyre]

DISAGREE STRONGLY.

Here's a hypothetical game system: You narrate some things, players narrate the actions of their characters. That's it.

How do you maintain tension? How do you make the game fun? Well, it's not impossible. You narrate things very descriptively and get them really into it. You prepare humorous characters and funny moments, etc. etc.

I've done this. A lot. After 5e it's my most common form of RP that I've run. And it's hard. Every type of player problem you have in DND is magnified a hundredfold. It doesn't require a lot of set-up but you have to be good at running a game in order to make something like this fun.

A rules-lite system like Dread can be very fun... but once again you need to be good at GMing.

DND is a game that even snotty-nosed 12-year olds with negative charisma can run. There's homework, but nothing too bad.

I agree. As a teacher, having a framework is super important. Saying "just go and do X" is pretty useless without proper scaffolding. And rules provide a scaffold. It's a U shaped curve--too many, and they choke the ground. Too few, and there's no good place to start. 5e is much better than 4e on this matter, but if you dropped too many rules you'd end up on the other side of the curve.

[Derpaligtr]

Not really, since it's such a wide window of acceptability. Past level 1, you're unlikely to TPK a party (and can always adjust on the fly if necessary). Really, unless you're being obtuse, the encounter-building tables from Xanathar's get you 99% of the way there. And the vast majority of the time, custom monsters are best done by slapping on a new ability onto a pre-existing stat block (or altering one that exists). And very few alterations significantly affect CR.

I wrote a whole guide on this. Fact is, CR matters only in the broadest of senses. It gives an upper bound on the difficulty (with a very few exceptions, like the intellect devourer which punches either way above or way below its CR).

It isn't about TPK. It's about having an adequate challenge. This isn't DM versus players.

To give a proper challenge, you need to adhere to all the finicky rules that 5e has set up. With a simpler rule set, you will be able to make adequate challenges easier. Mostly because you wouldn't have to waste so much time.

You don't create monsters to kill your PCs, you create them to challenge your players. Too easy of a challenge is just as bad, if not worse, than having too hard of a challenge.

Also, in order to adjust on the fly, you need a bit of experience DMing... With simpler rules, more people could do this. However, from plenty of AL and home game experience, this on the fly adjusting is not something a lot of DMs have. In fact, I would say such a skill is a rarity. Adjusting on the fly is how many challenges become bad (TPK or waaaay too easy).

[PhoenixPhyre]

It isn't about TPK. It's about having an adequate challenge. This isn't DM versus players.

To give a proper challenge, you need to adhere to all the finicky rules that 5e has set up. With a simpler rule set, you will be able to make adequate challenges easier. Mostly because you wouldn't have to waste so much time.

You don't create monsters to kill your PCs, you create them to challenge your players. Too easy of a challenge is just as bad, if not worse, than having too hard of a challenge.

Also, in order to adjust on the fly, you need a bit of experience DMing... With simpler rules, more people could do this. However, from plenty of AL and home game experience, this on the fly adjusting is not something a lot of DMs have. In fact, I would say such a skill is a rarity. Adjusting on the fly is how many challenges become bad (TPK or waaaay too easy).

What finicky rules? I've found that most players (at least the ones I play with) aren't trying to ride the razor's edge of difficulty. As long as the fight is engagingly described, an occasional cakewalk is fine. And people improve (or they start with modules which do a decent job of laying out the basics).

[Knaight]

Edit: wait, hold up. Are you saying you like fudge because it fixes some of the things fate does wrong? I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the two games exactly here.

Fudge predates Fate - they're very different systems in a lot of ways, where Fate took a fair amount of the Fudge core mechanics (and has been acknowledging that increasingly less recently) it also fundamentally changed the game in a lot of ways.

If you think of Fudge as the bridge between GURPS and Fate you won't be too wrong (the author was even originally a GURPS author), and I much prefer it because of that GURPS influence.

[Tanarii]

What finicky rules? I've found that most players (at least the ones I play with) aren't trying to ride the razor's edge of difficulty. As long as the fight is engagingly described, an occasional cakewalk is fine. And people improve (or they start with modules which do a decent job of laying out the basics).
Default balance of 5e combats and adventuring days are balanced closer to cakewalk than razors edge.

I do not mean that in a disparaging way. For 5e to be accessible, it could not be designed as baseline lethal. If a DM wants more likely to kill combats the opportunity it there.

Also, challenge can easily come from something other higher CR or more fighters per adventuring day. :smallamused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Default balance of 5e combats and adventuring days are balanced closer to cakewalk than razors edge.

I do not mean that in a disparaging way. For 5e to be accessible, it could not be designed as baseline lethal. If a DM wants more likely to kill combats the opportunity it there.

Also, challenge can easily come from something other higher CR or more fighters per adventuring day. :smallamused:

Exactly. So there's no kind of finicky rules there, unless your group demands razor's edge fights. And exact balance is so group-and-situation dependent as to be impossible to simplify. Things that are highly over-CR get wasted, things that are low CR are nasty...but wouldn't be to a different group with different abilities and tactics.

[ZorroGames]

Exactly. So there's no kind of finicky rules there, unless your group demands razor's edge fights. And exact balance is so group-and-situation dependent as to be impossible to simplify. Things that are highly over-CR get wasted, things that are low CR are nasty...but wouldn't be to a different group with different abilities and tactics.

Agtreed. Played a scenario with one character and the party face made the game, while challenging, doable.

Different characters, everyone had intimidation, no one had persuasion, no one had deception; same scenario = TPK. And the DM was trying near the end to not kill us.

[Snails]

Always found it very weird how the CR system gets singled out to complain about. Sure, it is very imperfect...but it is at least a bit less imperfect than every comparable system I have ever seen.

If you do not like the CR system, you can just ignore it. It is that simple. It only exists to save the DM work. If you think you know better, then just do it.


Yes, the default lethality level is closer to cakewalk than razor's edge. But in a world of flatter math, weird runs of the dice are not at all rare. In one recent session, a wandering monster, not the least bit a challenge prevail against, just tore through the hit points of two of four PCs, so that they had to burn through basically all their hit dice for healing afterwards. Bad luck happens. Good luck happens. So razor's edge just cannot be the default, because it will end up high-lethality grim and gritty on the adventure days the luck runs out -- which is a fine style but not ideal for the out of the box experience.

[GreyBlack]

So, I mean, 5e is... fine. It's even good in some places. In saying that, some stuff just rubs me the wrong way. I've gone into detail in other places that there's too much emphasis on "balance" when there really need not be, and I've given my grumblings about how certain classes have lost their niche.

That said? It's a great introduction to RPG's, I find. There is a bit of a lack of metaphorical processing power in the gaming engine which I find dissatisfying, and a lack of ability to create really wacky builds makes many classes just feel the same, but that's also part of the appeal. I get that. Just... not my favorite.

(For reference, my favorite RPG is Battletech: A Time Of War, so take this with a mountain of salt.)

[Tawmis]

Welcome to 5e.
It’s my favorite version of D&d so far.

Agreed... and... agreed.