Why do you like 5e? Why do you play it?

[Rfkannen]

I like 5e! I was just wondering, what do you like about it? Why do you play it?

[Democratus]

I play it because it is the current version of D&D. :)

I do like many things about it: inspiration, short/long rests, fewer rigid rules, hit dice

[MaxWilson]

I like 5e! I was just wondering, what do you like about it? Why do you play it?

My favorite thing about 5E is that it's complex enough to be an interesting CRPG implementation problem. That is, I'm not motivated to automate AD&D because it's so simple that it's pointless (except for places where it's impossibly complex and needs a human DM), but 5E is both hard enough to be interesting as a problem and hard enough to learn/run that it's valuable to automate it, because human brains are much worse than computers at interpreting GOTO statements and COME FROM statements, and 5E is nothing but COME FROMs.

"When you are hit by an attack, roll damage, and subtract it from your HP."

"If you're a Raging Barbarian, halve the damage before subtracting it from your HP, but only if it's B/P/S."

"If you're a Barbearian, then still halve it if it's not B/P/S, unless it's Psychic damage."

"If you have Elemental Adept for an element, then when you cast a spell doing damage of that element, Barbearians don't get to halve the damage after all."

Etc.

This means there's a hidden GOTO (i.e. a COME FROM) inside each of these statements, pointing to the next-more-specialized statement after it. If you forget about one of them you're breaking the rules, but 5E is written in such a way that the special cases are invisible. Humans therefore tend to forget about all of the special cases, the exceptions piled on exceptions that constitute actual 5E play.

Especially new players are in a challenging position when trying to figure out things like "can I cast two Fireballs in one round or not? Does it matter if I Action Surged or Quickened Spell?" (Even if another player explains it to them, the explanation sounds really complex and involves jumping around in the book.)

That means there's a need for an app, and I like that challenge. But when it comes to running a TTRPG, especially for someone who's never played a TTRPG before, 5E is definitely not my first choice. For playing an RPG as a player, well, it's okay as a combat engine for dungeon crawls. It's easy to break, but sometimes playing a broken, easy game is kind of fun in a way. Also leads to fun Internet discussions sometimes.

[Sparky McDibben]

Because I can use it to make fun and interesting stories with my players.

[Kane0]

It’s a solid framework on its own, simple enough for new and casual players, just barely complex enough for more serious gamers but above all that very easy to modify.

Subclasses, splitting movement from actions, rest types, advantage, concentration and upcasting are fairly elegant mechanics and decisions that I appreciate, and proficiency / bounded accuracy is a fair replacement for previous core mechanics.

Not to say its flawless, but as I said its very easy to modify so if I take issue with some finer points of balance or want a more involved skill system or intend much more emphasis on exploration rather than combat I appreciate that the Devs left a lot of room to work with.

[Imbalance]

The miniatures are cool. I haven't played around enough to have found anything better.

[Ratatoskir]

I think it's the most accessible grid based tactical combat rpg, which is a valuable niche to fill even if this edition has moved away from that attract more players. It's easy to pick up and harder to make an ineffective character compared to past editions.

It's not actually what I prefer, nor do I think it's what most of the people I've played DnD with would prefer if they were invested enough in the hobby to look at other games. But it is something that friends of mine are playing and roleplaying is first and foremost a social activity for me, so I'm happy to play it even if I wish people would occasionally be interested in other systems/genres.

[NRSASD]

I like 5e for a wide variety of reasons. In no particular order:

*Player Freedom and Expression is encouraged. It's hard to build a truly useless character and each character is a lot more durable than they were in previous editions, encouraging more party combinations and requiring less tactics.

*The rule set is crunchy enough that you can get some good fights out of it without bogging the game down tremendously but simple enough to learn easily.

*The rules are explicitly designed to be changed as needed. More than just giving us permission, they're written in such a way that you can alter the rules quite a bit before things start breaking (as opposed to other systems I've played, where the slightest tweak destroys it).

*The rules fade into the background when it serves the story. Knowing how an NPC will react can be simplified down to a dice roll rather than diving into the mechanical complexities of a full fight.

*Plenty of other reasons exist as well. Really, my only complaints so far is that the character options are a little magic-obsessed and we don't have enough reasons to spend money (without going full crafting and opening a whole can of worms), making monetary treasure less interesting.

[Pex]

It's an improvement on what existed before in D&D. Yes, I can say even of 3E despite 3E having aspects that are better than 5E, in my opinion. The most important improvement is player freedom to do whatever they want on their turn. Particular abilities may have conditions, but you want to use those conditions. Generally it means you can do whatever you want, without penalty to do it, regardless of how you move. You can move before, in between, and/or after you do whatever it is you want to do. Without penalty means you do not have a minus number to something for moving and are not forbidden from doing things because you moved. This is a big deal compared to D&D of the past.

Player freedom extends into particulars. For warriors it means getting multiple attacks without a minus number and without movement restrictions. Do them all. For spellcasters this means cantrips. You can always do a minor trick, and with combat cantrips you can always do something effective enough for your level to make you feel like a spellcasters instead of "I fire my crossbow". Use your main spells when you want, but when you want to conserve or the situation doesn't warrant the big guns cast a cantrip and still have fun contributing.

[Waterdeep Merch]

It has a solid foundation with math that's simple enough that I can modify it easily to suit a wide variety of fantasy games. It's been years since I ran a basic 5e game without homerules, yet each campaign I've run in that time has had entirely different homerules. I can marry entire subsystems to it on the fly; a player wanted complex shopkeeper rules once, so I made a system for him in half an hour that I felt confident wouldn't break anything too badly.

I know the lack of concrete rules in some areas bothers people, but I've found those sections useful in letting me craft my own concrete rules that suit my games.

[EggKookoo]

As others have said or implied, it hits a good sweet spot between simplicity and complexity.

I like the philosophy behind a number of decisions. I like bounded accuracy. I like +3 weapons being the top end. I like the idea that as a DM I can make a magic sword that glows and deals radiant damage instead of slashing, with no other bonuses, and I can actually give a weapon like that to a tier 1 PC without breaking balance. I like the approach(es) to keeping the game easy to run. I like the monster-creation rules (yes, I said it!).

There's stuff I don't like, but there's a lot more stuff I do like.

[CheddarChampion]

I met my current group because of D&D (and local game shops). I have a lot of fun playing with and DMing for them, if it weren't for the popularity of D&D I wouldn't have met 6 friends.

I imagine other people have had this experience.

[GooeyChewie]

The other day I was watching Young Sheldon, and they were playing D&D. His sister wanted to play a Ninja Turtle Princess of Power. When Sheldon protested that she couldn't do that, I realized in 5E you CAN do that.

Ninja? Monk as the obvious choice, or Rogue could fit.
Turtle? Tortle.
Princess? Noble background.
Of Power? Assuming that means magic, Five Elements or Arcane Trickster works, or you can multiclass.

Would it be great? Probably not. But one reason I still love playing 5E is that you can go for weird builds and not be so handicapped as to not have fun. And as long as you're willing to alter fluff, the character possibilities become pretty well limitless.

[Vegan Squirrel]

I definitely feel like it's in a great sweet spot, as others noted, between simplicity and complexity. IMO, it's a great system to DM. The more you get to know it, the easier it is to make on-the-fly rulings and trust that you won't break anything. It encourages DMs to play with it and make it their own (as DMs have done with every edition, with or without encouragement), and the engine's robust enough to handle the tinkering.

The subclass approach is excellent, efficiently enabling a wide array of archetypes without bloat. The feats are so much better than previous editions' feat and power trees—fewer feats to decide on, but more impact with each one actually providing what it says and no feat taxes to get through to get what you really wanted. I love how the skill system's loose DC guidelines lie in the sweet spot between the simulationist bent of 3rd edition's long lists of set DCs and the looseness of early roll-under-your-score ability checks (essentially every check having the same DC). Advantage instead of so many situational modifiers. The elegance of a saving throw for each ability. The simplicity of adding the same proficiency bonus to all of your proficiencies. The simplification of spell preparation. Concentration and reduced high level spell slots. Legendary actions as a simple action economy patch. The reduced number and scope of magic items (and gold), instead allowing easier access to utility magic through racial spells, subclasses, unlimited cantrips, rituals, and feat choices. Even the standard array as a core ability score option, which is just enough variety from strong to weak and super quick to arrange in your preferred order.

The mechanics do their job and then get out of the way. They do a good job of balancing the twin purposes of playing a game and playing a character. They give you some control over the parameters of a roll, but embrace the dice enough to let things fall where they may, while properly encouraging DMs only to use the dice when the outcome should be in doubt. And I like that the gap between a character optimized for combat and a character built for interesting flavor is a modest one.

I don't like everything about 5th edition, but it's a great, flexible system. I sometimes feel like WotC doesn't always understand the nuances of their own system, or at least that they're bad at explaining parts of the system (encounter-building guidance, CR not being the most relevant number, etc.). And it feels like they're just one step away from a great insight in some of their rules, but part of that's probably the intentional balancing of play styles. I like that competing play styles can settle on 5th edition as their compromise edition, while it's simultaneously the favorite edition for so many who feel less strongly attached to one particular style. And it really is easy to modify to suit a group's tastes. I envision a future edition built on the same structure, but split into two compatible sub-structures—'advanced' classes with greater mechanical complexity and character customization, and 'basic' classes that are even more simplified but built to keep up with the advanced classes.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I like 5e! I was just wondering, what do you like about it? Why do you play it?

As voice already, it's the current edition and everyone is playing it. It's also easy to get people to play, because people like run away screaming if you introduce them to 3.5e or PF.

Other than that, positive features include:
Sharpshooter/GWM existing
Easy to make ones own stuff for
level 20 characters aren't as invulnerable to level 1 characters as in other editions

[Azuresun]

I think it's where I am as a gamer, after burning out hard on 3e and then Pathfinder to the point where 4e completely passed me by. I'm through with fiddly rules, I'm through with stacking 1.2 billion bonuses, I'm through with people "winning" a co-op game in character generation, I'm through with spending half an hour statting up an NPC who gets killed by a save-or-lose in the first round, and I'm through with needing a prestige class that perfectly represents my super-kewl sword mage guy who can magic people and sword them at the same time.

So with all that in mind, 5e was a really nice surprise. For me, it's the embodiment of something being complete not when there's nothing to add, but when there's nothing left to remove. In short, what this poster said. :smallsmile:


The subclass approach is excellent, efficiently enabling a wide array of archetypes without bloat. The feats are so much better than previous editions' feat and power trees—fewer feats to decide on, but more impact with each one actually providing what it says and no feat taxes to get through to get what you really wanted. I love how the skill system's loose DC guidelines lie in the sweet spot between the simulationist bent of 3rd edition's long lists of set DCs and the looseness of early roll-under-your-score ability checks (essentially every check having the same DC). Advantage instead of so many situational modifiers. The elegance of a saving throw for each ability. The simplicity of adding the same proficiency bonus to all of your proficiencies. The simplification of spell preparation. Concentration and reduced high level spell slots. Legendary actions as a simple action economy patch. The reduced number and scope of magic items (and gold), instead allowing easier access to utility magic through racial spells, subclasses, unlimited cantrips, rituals, and feat choices. Even the standard array as a core ability score option, which is just enough variety from strong to weak and super quick to arrange in your preferred order.

The mechanics do their job and then get out of the way. They do a good job of balancing the twin purposes of playing a game and playing a character. They give you some control over the parameters of a roll, but embrace the dice enough to let things fall where they may, while properly encouraging DMs only to use the dice when the outcome should be in doubt. And I like that the gap between a character optimized for combat and a character built for interesting flavor is a modest one.

[Spiritchaser]

Why 5e?

I’m a poor multitasker, which is not what you want in a DM. Unfortunately in my play group, I’m generally the only one who will. 5e runs smoothly enough to be workable for me, it’s simple enough that less diligent players can learn what they need to so I don’t have to cover for them much, but it’s still detailed enough to be tactically interesting.

[Lorka]

We used to play AD&D 25 years ago and wanted to play again, we chose the current edition and here we are.

Personally I prefer skill based and more ‘realistic’ systems, but most prefer dnd.

A couple of us have played different systems through the years, but I’d say about half the group haven’t touched RPGs for 25 years before we started.

We have been going strong for 3 years every other week since.

[EndlessKng]

Disclaimer: I'm not currently playing it or any other TTRPG. This is more due to availability than anything else though.

What I like about 5e:
Simple character creation: I can throw a character together in five minutes if I need to. It's a draw of other systems as well, like PbtA, but still worth noting.
Bounded Accuracy: this is a brilliant construction that keeps the game from getting ludicrous. L5R had this a bit with how the armor TN was controlled by a trait that was hard to raise, but did nothing to adjust for attack skill. This allows weaker foes to be threatening without just nullifying any advantages of being higher level, I feel.
Multiclass Casting and built-in spell level scaling: You mean I don't need a feat to make a spell stronger through casting it at a higher level? And my 1st level spells can still be helpful at higher levels? Sign me TF up.

[Hairfish]

I don't like 5e. It's a milquetoast system for producing any story that doesn't rely on "and then I rolled really [well/poorly]" to be interesting.

The weird "natural language" in the rules raises more questions than it answers, unless you put your rules lawyer hat on and know exactly which places they've scattered all the relevant rules across (the most egregious example probably being initiating combat from stealth); when asked to resolve the inevitable confusion, the designers get really smarmy about it.

However, it's difficult to find a group that's even willing to take a chance on playing anything better, so it's either play 5e or don't play at all.

[carrdrivesyou]

I don't like 5e. It's a milquetoast system for producing any story that doesn't rely on "and then I rolled really [well/poorly]" to be interesting.

The weird "natural language" in the rules raises more questions than it answers, unless you put your rules lawyer hat on and know exactly which places they've scattered all the relevant rules across (the most egregious example probably being initiating combat from stealth); when asked to resolve the inevitable confusion, the designers get really smarmy about it.

However, it's difficult to find a group that's even willing to take a chance on playing anything better, so it's either play 5e or don't play at all.

Same really. I mean, it's a decent system once you figure it out, and the rules lite system makes it appealing for the community to grow. But FFS, where's a good Shadowrun game when you need one!?

[Eldariel]

The reason I play 5e: it's the only game I can, outside Conventions, find GMs without going out of my way and bending over backwards to try and make the games suit my schedule.

The reason I DM 5e: it's a decent rule set for newbies to get started on in D&D-style RPGs in general.

The things I like about 5e:
- Bounded accuracy
- Concentration (up to a point)
- Spellcasting in general
- Action structure
- Subclasses (up to a point)

The things I dislike about 5e:
- Monster creation rules
- CR
- Poor skill system design
- Martial classes in general
- Multiclassing rules
- ASI/feat opposition
- Internal spell balance (some spells are so good that they make most of the spells not worth casting and every character of said class almost as samey as non-casters; especially true for Clerics and Druids)
- Poor feat integration and design
- Certain side effects of Concentration (mostly how they lead to a vast number of spells never being worth casting)
- Certain side effects of the subclass system (certain archetypes being pidgeonholed into classes poorly suited for it; many combinations not really being playable; some "public domain" feeling abilities being restricted to subclasses)


In general, I mostly like the broad strokes of the system but I find that it lacks a lot of polish and finetuning and I find it did dirty with martial types. In general, I play it mostly due to lack of alternatives unless I wanna DM and spend the painstaking forever teaching a group a new system while being responsible for literally everything (well, I have a group I could play a few other games with but we're currently running a longer 5e campaign so it'll be a while before we have a chance to switch).

[Keravath]

I like 5e because it comes closest to the flavor/feeling of AD&D with a simpler approach and without having the rules bloat from 2-> 3 -> 3.5/PF.

- relatively easier to learn (THAC0 - what is that? :). AC of -5 - what does that mean? Strength of 18/00 but only strength has percentile values??? It was fun but honestly not needed)
- bounded accuracy
- better character balance - even the fighter doesn't usually feel utterly useless even into tier 3/4 as long as the adventuring day is long enough. Wizards only have one level 8/9 spell slot/day ... so although these can be encounter changing, the wizard can't use them on every encounter unless the DM obliges with ONE encounter/day type experiences.
- concentration mechanic

etc

[opaopajr]

It's a clean and relatively easy WotC "compromise" version of D&D. Enough widgets to hold some attentions, enough simple variety to appeal to simpler tastes, too. Not too hard to curate race, class, archetype, background, etc. to shift the tenor of a campaign. Has enough DIY wiggleroom to quickly open new vistas in play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It does most of what I want out of a TTRPG and then gets out of my way when I do the final tweaks.

1. It's open to new settings that change metaphysics. Unlike, say, Shadowrun or White Wolf games generally, which are basically locked to a single setting. Building my own setting is a huge chunk of my fun.
2. It plays simply--the core mechanics are simple enough that I can do them and pay attention to everything else. And they're flexible enough that I can override them when the fiction demands it. And they're ok with being used as a toolset instead of a contract.
3. The genre it does best (Heroic People Doing Heroic Things in fantasy environments) is generally what I want to play.
4. [relevant to my background with the game] It's super easy to pick up and play with new people, even ones who don't know anything. As long as one person knows the rules (or at least reads through them), things generally work out. And if you deviate from the rules in the process, that's generally ok. See #2.

Specific mechanics don't really move the needle much for me. Except that I have no desire to pilot a spreadsheet, nor do I want the game to be "won" at character creation. I want people to build characters as people, then see how they change. Not plan super-special builds from 1-20 which put demands on the game. I want all of us, DM included, to be surprised at what comes out of our collective imaginations, modulated by the rules.

Basically, 5e does a great job of being a UI for a game (within its own genre/style). And that's all I really want from a game.

[Remover of Obst]

Our group spends less time re-reading rules on grappling and turn undead and much more time doing heroic, crazy, and fun things.


Also a lot easier to teach to new players.

[Lokishade]

What I love about DnD 5e is the mentality of its design. It's simple, at least by TTRPG standards.

What I love the most out of the rules is the movement. Movement is not an action that competes with other actions and that must get special privileges to be used, thus complicating the rules. If you want to move, you just move. It doesn't matter if you're in the middle of an Attack Action, you can dance around the battlefield, freestyle.

[Demonslayer666]

I love 5th edition's simplicity. It's fun to play and still D&D.

I play it because the other 2 DMs run 5th, I DM it because all of us want to play 5th edition. I'd still happily play 3.5 or Pathfinder though.

[micahaphone]

My first tabletop was Pathfinder. When my group switched to 5E I found it ran incredibly smoothly and I no longer felt like the rules were constraining me. Now I sometimes enjoy other systems that constrain even less than 5e, but 5e was the first time I felt able to stay engaged in the game.

I understand why people love pathfinder/3.5, with its strong rewards for system mastery and the absolute depth you can dive into for character creation. I personally strongly disliked its "a rule for everything" approach. For one small example, the sharpshooter player in our group wanted to make a "pocket sand" mix of glass dust, sand, and chili powder to throw at people as a GTFO button. That was fairly easy and quick to homebrew in 5e, and if they want to be proficient/good with it, that's the Tavern Brawler feat. done and done. In pathfinder, there's a feat chain for dirty fighting which you sink 2-5 feats into and an exotic weapons proficiency.

Or outside of character options, if I'm DMing and a player comes up with something creative I can probably make a quick ruling and keep the game moving in 5e. In pathfinder there's probably a few paragraphs of rules for this, and if I don't have them memorized (which I clearly didn't) I need to pause the game to go check what the rules are. I know that like 5e I could probably make a ruling and keep moving, but the complexity of pf makes it feel like any rulings could have future knock on effects that further muck up the rules.

Sorry to bash on pathfinder, it's a great game system for people that enjoy the complexity.

[KaussH]

Its a fun hack and slash game thats easy to pick up. I prefer 2nd ed, but not a lot of us running that any more.
5th if fun to play, and easy to run low to mid level. Might someday change my 1st age 2nd ed big campaign over to 3rd age 5th ed. :)

[Willie the Duck]

I like 5e! I was just wondering, what do you like about it? Why do you play it?

Early on in the release of 5e, I listened to an old-school podcast and someone said something like, 'So I finally got a look at fifth edition, and I see why people say it is everyone's second favorite edition.' That's clearly not the case, but there's a kernel of an idea there that I do agree with. People (myself included) tend to like 5e better than most D&Ds, excepting for the one they would really like to play... where they are willing to overlook (or have houseruled out) such and such glaring issue. I would probably prefer to play AD&D over 5e... but only if we did something about the pointless racial class restrictions (and level limits which were always a poor way of either balancing the races or enforcing Gygax's vision of a humanocentric game). Or I would prefer to play in a B/X-BECMI hybrid as I did when I was 9... except that the notion that clerics and magic users kept getting new and amazing (adventuring-aiding) spells after on hits name level, while a fighter gets... the ability to be lord and army commander (to say nothing of a thief's poor lot in the game) is fun for maybe one campaign out of 10. Or even 3e during the character creation part of the game where you are poring over fun sounding options and dreaming up combinations and such. All of these versions of the game have some really fun and enjoyable, but come with one or more major glaring issues you have to work around. 5e's glaring issues are most of omission -- there isn't a great hexcrawling ruleset, there isn't a great leading-an-army ruleset, and so on. For those, I can mostly just import the version from another version that I want.

It gets more pronounced when introducing new players (particularly kids) to the game. Despite really loving Moldvay basic and also the Mentzer 'choose your own adventure' intro to the game (I will still someday find you Bargle, and avenge the cleric Aleena), they still just dumped you into the meatgrinder that was low-level basic/classic (while failing to showcase the morale or reaction chart rules, which I feel is why so many people ended up ignoring them). 5e defaults to easy mode (which I know a lot of people complain about, but I think makes perfect sense for a game potentially for 10-12 year-olds to pick up without adults showing them the ropes), and tends to make the reasons for things somewhat clear. I can introduce my niece and nephew to this game in a few years and they will probably like it, and I won't have to explain that once you get past your fifth character death you really are bound to have one actually get up to a level where they can survive the odd 'Death Ray or Poison' save and there might be some actual breathing room.

There are gaps, and limitations, and in general I will play Forbidden Lands (or Worlds Without Number when the final version comes out) for hexcrawling or GURPS/HERO for rigorous skill systems or some FATE/PBtA/Dramasystem game for the dramatic/character-interaction-rules heavy game. However, 5e is the game I can sit down with any group of friends and play.

[Waazraath]

I like 5e! I was just wondering, what do you like about it? Why do you play it?

Our group sticked to 3.5 when 4e came out, and with a new edtition, we gave it a try. Compared to 3.5 it has most of the good stuff that edition had, with a much better balance and much better ruleset on major points (bounded accuracy, the same subsystem for skill/saves/attacks, subclasses all work out great).

[Meatball]

Have played most versions, and really enjoying 5e a lot. Just seems to be setup for easing new people in pretty quickly, but does ramp up the complexity as you go in further. Makes it good for onboarding new folks to D&D without overwhelming them right away.

[ImproperJustice]

It’s the Nintendo Wii of RPGs.

By that, I mean it has an insanely high accessibility.
My kids who prefer video games can easily grasp the rules quickly. My office mates and friends who barely understand the concept of gaming can pick up the consistency in the rule set and feel like they know what their doing.

My friends who are OSR Grognards from 25 years ago can sit down with it, and recapture their old experiences quickly and be satisfied with just enough crunch and difficulty.

My powergamer PCs can find enough bits to make some cool monsters, but enough flaws are built into each class to require them to use some team work.

As a GM with wives, kids, jobs, and a ton of responsibility, it’s easy to run. Lots of support, modules, apps, etc means prep time is minimal, unless you want to pour more in.

New stuff adds lots of options without too much crazy bloat like previous editions.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Agreed and well put, however I only have one wife, child and job.

[Darzil]

I like it for the history, it is what I started on in the 80’s (haven’t played between AD&D and 5th. It’s a decent solid system which does what I’d expect.

We are playing it as a break, there are good published adventures. After five years of FFG Star Wars twice a week it was time for a change.

[2D8HP]

I like 5e! I was just wondering, what do you like about it? Why do you play it?


It's popular and fun.

I started "gaming" with the 1977 "blue book" Basic D&D rules (still my preferred version to DM), but at first level I now prefer 5e 'cause the PC's usually survive to reach second level.

I can't DM 5e without a red pencil cutting out most options (or insist that players who want to use them legible put them on an index card for me, and if it didn't fit on the card they don't get to use it), but as a player I may just have a Champion Fighter and play without much cognitive load almost like it was still 1980.

The only hiccups are when other players or the DM try to make me "optimize" more - they can pound sand.

[Sandeman]

I have played 2nd ed, 3rd ed, 3.5 ed, 3.5 pathfinder, 4th ed (very little) and 5th ed.

Imho 5th edition is the best version by far.
The system doesnt break at higher levels. (AC35 PCs from 3.5 edition, I am looking at you)
The subclasses are cool. Skills and feats are not overly complicated.
Upcasting spells is a nice feature. (no need for multiple versions of the cure wounds spell)
The action economy system is well thought out and fun.

[Hael]

I play it because it’s accessible and our group moved on from pathfinder. I think it’s ok, and has some strong points like bounded accuracy, but as a whole the combat is poorly designed and really made for rpg newbies. There’s very little tactical depth, and has many glaring problems that previous editions did better (see yoyo deaths, resting, ranged vs melee, unfun concentration system, lack of options for melee, lack of build options, poorly designed caster counters etc)

I very much hope they move on from this system sooner rather than later, as a whole it’s one of my least favorite games of the genre.

[Eldariel]

The system doesnt break at higher levels. (AC35 PCs from 3.5 edition, I am looking at you)

While I otherwise agree with you, on this point I must say that I feel like this is the worst edition since 3.5e. No restrictions on basic Wish, True Polymorph or Shapechange leads to all kinds of ridiculous stupidity as soon as 9th level spells are on the table, for the classes that get them. Everyone else gets left in the dust.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I would say the quality of the product, and having something fresh, fun, and playable to do. I'm just sitting here going through Out of Avernus, which I got for Christmas, admiring the art, setting, story, and unique ideas that went into it. Who doesn't want to use the souls of the damned to power war machines? That's awesome. Sure I will change some things as we play it, but there's just so much good stuff in one 250 page book to use.
We played a modified version of 2e for decades, but this has re-ignited our group's passion for RPGs

[PhantomSoul]

I like it because it's what people will play. I may find it wildly insufficient or unsatisfying in many ways, but it's enjoyable overall and it's definitely better than playing nothing. With busy lives, it's also not really plausible to think we'll change systems soon; it's too late, and this being relatively simple was a selling point (even if it's now been long enough that some much-desired complexity would have been fine).

[Samayu]

I like 5e! I was just wondering, what do you like about it? Why do you play it?

Well... there are a lot of things I don't like about it. Like the fact that it uses a class system, and ... other things, but you didn't ask what we don't like.

What I like about it is that it is fairly simple. Not only are the rules easy for players to pick up, but the world is a generic fantasy setting. Everybody knows what's what. And since most people know the system, or similar systems, it's easy to find other players, or games to join.

[ImproperJustice]

Agreed and well put, however I only have one wife, child and job.

Count yourself lucky.

[EggKookoo]

I actually started playing 5e because of this forum. I was running a 3e game and I was looking for ways to streamline combat. I came here and set up this account to ask that very question. There were some helpful responses, but a number of people said to just play 5e. I assumed 5e was just "more 3e" so I was skeptical, but I got the basic rules and liked what I saw. The thing that finally sold me was the concept of the reaction, which was something I was thinking of homebrewing into my 3e game -- some way to act "out of turn" in response to something else that happened.

I refactored the campaign to work in 5e and never looked back. Most importantly, my players liked the change.

[loki_ragnarock]

I've played a fair few games. GURPS. Cyberpunk. Basic D&D. D&D 1e. D&D 2e. D&D 3.x/Pathfinder. D&D 4e. Lot5R. Shadowrun. Rifts. Mage. Werewolf. Exalted. Exalted 2e. Chivalry and Sorcery. BESM. BESMd20. Several others I've forgotten, I'm sure.
I've run a fair few, as well. Basic D&D. D&D2e, 3.x/Pathfinder, 4e, 5e. Exalted. BESMd20.
I owned a copy of Hackmaster that got lost in a move, but I've never played that. I do still have my copy of Aberrant d20, and I'll never play that. Those were more for the giggles.



- Bounded accuracy
It keeps the math simple, and thus the game flowing. It keeps the entire monster manual relevant.

- Advantage/Disadvantage
It's elegant. It's simple. It keeps the game moving. No tables, no edge cases, no stacking bonuses; you have one, or the other, or both and thus neither. Perfect. It's that last interaction that makes it perfect; as soon as it could become fiddly and something to argue over you throw the entire thing out! I can't tell you how happy that makes me as a design decision.

- It's modular
As found in the DMG, small tweaks to the rules can have big implications towards tone of game play. It's geared towards a medieval superhero game on default. Further tweaking beyond the officially supported tweaks can further narrow things into a preferred play style.

- It's setting agnostic
Alot of games build their system to tell a specific story, in a specific setting, in a specific way. Heroic medieval fantasy is about as narrowed down as this one gets.

- It's not proscriptive
What is the DC for x action? They don't tell you specifics, instead giving you tiers. Use your best judgement. Or simply lean into the idea that the number is whatever seems narratively convenient. No exact percentage chance to bend bards/lift gates. No codified number for swimming up a waterfall.

- Feats
I hated feat chains from the time 3.0 was introduced, especially how they evolved so that the further down you went the chain the more niche and obtuse the gains typically were. Now it's straight forward, character defining, and modular. (Though with bloat they've diluted a bit). As a design space, it's really pretty broad and has potential for further exploration. Did you like prestige classes? Turn that old prestige class into a feat; if your old prestige class needed more than three bullet points to describe it, it was probably overbroad to begin with. Want to introduce a new mechanic? Slap it into a feat. It's a versatile, modular, powerful, simple, optional character feature; what they should have been in the first place.

- I can find people to play
Exalted is fun and all, but you gotta fall into that kind of crowd. And when you have to rub shoulders with only a select few people, you wind up rubbing shoulders with some creeps and jerks, or other people that rub you the wrong way, or silly shmucks that try to jam (extremely controversial magic systems that people familiar with the kickstarter fiasco from a few years back will recognize and say "Oh, yeah, okay. I get what you're talking about with the whole creeps thing," but that those unfamiliar with it will have to settle for me being circumspect) into the game in a way that turns you off from the entire product line. The comparative ubiquity of D&D means that if I find a group trying to do that kind of stuff, I can nope out and find another group within a week rather than noping out and turning my back on the entire hobby.
Market penetration is a powerful thing.

Anyway, the bones of the system are pretty solid. It's not perfect; I'd eliminate mechanics that interrupt what other people are doing. Interrupts made 4e a nightmare to run and play, but they're merely annoying to run in 5e with because they're relatively uncommon instead of ubiquitous.

Many people say that 5e is more newbie friendly, but that's not actually it; it's user friendly. And while that's especially good for newbies, there's a whole lot of value in that for everyone else, too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Many people say that 5e is more newbie friendly, but that's not actually it; it's user friendly. And while that's especially good for newbies, there's a whole lot of value in that for everyone else, too.

Amen to this. For me, this is the critical thing, especially as I get older and busier. 5e takes less of my brain space for the mechanics while running games, which leaves much more for the rest of the game. Establishing the fictions. Descriptions of things. Figuring out how NPCs react. Banter. Etc.

I don't play the game primarily for the mechanics. The mechanics exist to enable the game, but they are not the game itself. No more than the bricks are the building. Necessary? Yes. Sufficient? Heck no.

[Alcore]

I like 5e! I was just wondering, what do you like about it? Why do you play it?

i like that it is E6 after having been strung out some 20 levels to allow full casting. I like how martials and casters are as balanced as they likely will ever get. How the cantrips increase in power; it just seems right that ray of frost from a level 20 is nothing like a ray of frost from a level 1.


I am not truly sold on the system itself. Apart from the core mechanics (proficiency bonus, classes, monsters and magic) the rest seems half baked (if it is half). The supplements bring me to tears how poorly done they are. Downtime activities, my favorite way to ground my character into a setting, is a travesty!

Curse of Strahd (an adventure path) is a meat grinder. Supposedly able to go level 1 to 10. Yet the first encounter the PCs face contain more dire wolves than players and should they run the wrong direction are reinforced by 20 normal wolves. The dire wolves could wipe a party of 4s let along 1s. The next encounter? A vampire spawn. The next town over after only a level? A possibility of six vampire spawn if they explore. Yay! Can i change it to my preferences? Sure. Might as well make my own adventure then; i bought it so we could have a light pop and chips game but not half an idea to fill in blanks.

There is an optional dungeon for level 1s (should they still be alive) that is well balanced. I just wish the rest of the story was done so well. I feel i have wasted a lot of money. To me it just can't compete with 3.5 edition. It (5e) has a better base but anything on top of it is poorly done.

[Vegan Squirrel]

...
Many people say that 5e is more newbie friendly, but that's not actually it; it's user friendly. And while that's especially good for newbies, there's a whole lot of value in that for everyone else, too.

Your post was a bit long to feel right quoting the whole thing but yes, to all of it. And that user-friendly bit is great (though I could see it being even more user-friendly if they put more thought and care into the language they use to write down their user-friendly mechanics [EDIT: really their presentation in general]).


Amen to this. For me, this is the critical thing, especially as I get older and busier. 5e takes less of my brain space for the mechanics while running games, which leaves much more for the rest of the game. Establishing the fictions. Descriptions of things. Figuring out how NPCs react. Banter. Etc.

I don't play the game primarily for the mechanics. The mechanics exist to enable the game, but they are not the game itself. No more than the bricks are the building. Necessary? Yes. Sufficient? Heck no.

I agree with a lot of your posts on this forum, this included.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

i like that it is E6 after having been strung out some 20 levels to allow full casting. I like how martials and casters are as balanced as they likely will ever get. How the cantrips increase in power; it just seems right that ray of frost from a level 20 is nothing like a ray of frost from a level 1.


I am not truly sold on the system itself. Apart from the core mechanics (proficiency bonus, classes, monsters and magic) the rest seems half baked (if it is half). The supplements bring me to tears how poorly done they are. Downtime activities, my favorite way to ground my character into a setting, is a travesty!

Curse of Strahd (an adventure path) is a meat grinder. Supposedly able to go level 1 to 10. Yet the first encounter the PCs face contain more dire wolves than players and should they run the wrong direction are reinforced by 20 normal wolves. The dire wolves could wipe a party of 4s let along 1s. The next encounter? A vampire spawn. The next town over after only a level? A possibility of six vampire spawn if they explore. Yay! Can i change it to my preferences? Sure. Might as well make my own adventure then; i bought it so we could have a light pop and chips game but not half an idea to fill in blanks.

There is an optional dungeon for level 1s (should they still be alive) that is well balanced. I just wish the rest of the story was done so well. I feel i have wasted a lot of money. To me it just can't compete with 3.5 edition. It (5e) has a better base but anything on top of it is poorly done.

Level 1 is a screwed up mess for sure, and I don't play 5e for that. Considering that many characters could effectively kill or incapacitate themselves twice in a single round building something meaningful and challenging to get them to level 2 is difficult, but I'll agree that many published products don't do a very good job of trying. I'm going to have to basically start BG:DiA myself.

[Naanomi]

Feels enough like the 2e I grew up on, while still lacking the tables and other nonsense enough to not feel dated.

Simple enough for play to be smooth, even with novice gamers, but with enough diversity to not feel too repetitive

[KorvinStarmast]

Why do you like 5e?
Because it is Dungeons and Dragons. Same reason that I played Original, Basic, Advanced (more 1 than 2) , and a bit of 3.x before I took a long break.

Why do you play it?
It's fun and accessible, and it is what our group picked when they decided to pick up D&D again.
It brought me back to the hobby.

I don't play the game primarily for the mechanics. The mechanics exist to enable the game, but they are not the game itself. No more than the bricks are the building. Necessary? Yes. Sufficient? Heck no. Yep.

Simple enough for play to be smooth, even with novice gamers, but with enough diversity to not feel too repetitive This also.