How has 5e changed since the last time I played? (When there was only the PHB)

[MonkeySage]

Last time I played 5e (in the Eberron setting), it wasn't really the best impression. I didn't get to write my own backstory, instead the DM had me roll on a table for it. Apparently my level 1 elven Wizard was a professor at an academy? Didn't make sense to me, and I wasn't at all prepared to roleplay that come session 1.

I didn't stick around because of schedule changes, but I noticed a lot of things from my native 3.5e were either streamlined or removed. The Monster Manual was published just after I left.

I didn't really like the changes from what I was used to, but what made it hardest of all for me to enjoy was what felt like a total loss of customization, at least at the time I was playing- down to not even being able to write my own backstory(which I think I more blame DM ineptitude for than anything).

What I've been seeing lately on youtube, it does seem like 5e has gotten better- though my experience with BG3 makes me highly skeptical, with the arbitrary cap on key ability scores at 15? (Ugly odd numbers....)

[Naanomi]

More race options, more subclass options, more feat options... a handful of more spells and backgrounds. Recent changes in Tasha's book lets people play around with racial stat point allocation. Some alternative class options that will be conceptually familiar if you are coming from 3.X. Fundamentally the same game it was though.

The background thing just sounds like your GM making optional idea generating tables and making them mandatory; not part of the 5e normal experience from my viewpoint.

[TyGuy]

Yeah, wizard professor is a really bizarre idea. I bet a story about a magic school with such academic tutors wouldn't hold anyone's attention.

The number of options in each category has increased but the number of categories has not increased in a meaningful way. It's still race, background, class, subclass, feats. And feats are still not as prolific as 3.5.

What you experienced with the backstory constraints isn't remotely normal though.

[MaxWilson]

Last time I played 5e (in the Eberron setting), it wasn't really the best impression. I didn't get to write my own backstory, instead the DM had me roll on a table for it. Apparently my level 1 elven Wizard was a professor at an academy? Didn't make sense to me, and I wasn't at all prepared to roleplay that come session 1.

I didn't stick around because of schedule changes, but I noticed a lot of things from my native 3.5e were either streamlined or removed. The Monster Manual was published just after I left.

I didn't really like the changes from what I was used to, but what made it hardest of all for me to enjoy was what felt like a total loss of customization, at least at the time I was playing- down to not even being able to write my own backstory(which I think I more blame DM ineptitude for than anything).

What I've been seeing lately on youtube, it does seem like 5e has gotten better- though my experience with BG3 makes me highly skeptical, with the arbitrary cap on key ability scores at 15? (Ugly odd numbers....)

Eh... there's been a lot of power creep in the form of additional character options (subclasses, feats, spells, etc.), but from what I've heard of 3E (I'm a TSR-era AD&D player myself) it's still nothing remotely like as granular what you're used to in 3E. On the other hand, you will probably get a better DM this time who at least lets you make up your own backstory and background (which is standard).

Depending on exactly how much customization you really want it may be worth giving things another shot. Also check out some of the guides that have been written (such as this druidic summoner's guide (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?588987-Circle-of-the-Shepherd-Druid-Guide-to-Fuzzy-Fury) or this one (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?542993-Xanathar-s-Guide-to-Munchkinry-First-Impressions-(-Tricks-amp-Spell-Combos-))) to see if those kinds of "customization" options appeal to you.

[Mastikator]

Dunno what BG3 is, the cap is 20 on attribute scores for the most part. Never heard of anyone setting it at 15, it would screw the balance of the game.

[Fable Wright]

Well, point buy before racial modifiers caps at 15. I think that's what BG3 did that's being complained about.

[MonkeySage]

Yeah, wizard professor is a really bizarre idea. I bet a story about a magic school with such academic tutors wouldn't hold anyone's attention.


I have no problem with a wizard professor. My problem was it didn't make sense for my character, who likely has never set foot on an actual campus. It makes no sense to me that such a professor would be level 1.

That's more a problem with the DM, though, as he made me roll on a table to determine my backstory rather than let me write my own.


Dunno what BG3 is, the cap is 20 on attribute scores for the most part. Never heard of anyone setting it at 15, it would screw the balance of the game.

Baldur's Gate 3 uses a point buy system, and without racial bonuses, you cannot begin with any ability score higher than 15 or lower than 8.

[Naanomi]

Baldur's Gate 3 uses a point buy system, and without racial bonuses, you cannot begin with any ability score higher than 15 or lower than 8.
That is pretty standard but not universal, the system 'expects' your stats to go up throughout play; and without magic they cap at 20 anyways.

[MonkeySage]

More from a DMing perspective, what's it like to design your own encounters? I know monsters aren't built with the same rules as PCs (Unlike in 3e) which I would think would make it harder to customize them.

[Kane0]

I didn't stick around because of schedule changes, but I noticed a lot of things from my native 3.5e were either streamlined or removed. The Monster Manual was published just after I left.

I didn't really like the changes from what I was used to, but what made it hardest of all for me to enjoy was what felt like a total loss of customization, at least at the time I was playing- down to not even being able to write my own backstory(which I think I more blame DM ineptitude for than anything).

What I've been seeing lately on youtube, it does seem like 5e has gotten better- though my experience with BG3 makes me highly skeptical, with the arbitrary cap on key ability scores at 15? (Ugly odd numbers....)

The core is still the same. You have race, class, background, subclass and ASIs. There are quite a few more choices within each of those categories thanks to splat but if you want more customization beyond that I reccommend something like a warlock which gets spells, invocations and a pact boon to choose from as well. Otherwise there are a few fighter subclasses which give you additional options to choose from (battlemaster, arcane archer, rune knight). Plenty of newer subclasses just give you more to play with in general too.

But the core is still the same. Concentration is still limiting. Stats still cap at 20. You still cant cast more than one levelled spell on your turn. You still only get one bonus action and reaction. Etc etc

[TyGuy]

More from a DMing perspective, what's it like to design your own encounters? I know monsters aren't built with the same rules as PCs (Unlike in 3e) which I would think would make it harder to customize them.

Significantly easier actually. Once you get the hang of things, there's no constraints so the DM can do whatever's clever.

Combine stat blocks
Add random charges of legendary resistance (fun for metagaming players)
Customize unique legendary actions
Tune up stats on an existing monster
Tune down stats on an existing monster
Add PC class features (even from different classes on the same NPC)

All fair game.

[Waterdeep Merch]

In general, don't expect the same number of build options or choices as in 3.x. There's still more than you'd get in most TTRPG's, but a big part of 5e's streamlining required simplifying character creation. Once you get good at it, you can build a new character concept from scratch at any level within just a few minutes, even if you've never seriously touched the class before. That means you can test things very rapidly if you really want to and there is room for some creative builds, but the character building minigame is miniscule comparatively. Imagine 3.x is a full workshop and 5e is Legos. You can conceivably make anything in a proper workshop, but it's neither as fast nor as user friendly as Legos.

Skill usage is much more holistic and far less simulationist. Same with stats in general, NPC's and monsters don't use the same exact same rules that players do. Numbers don't balloon, but they also don't increase much. This is good for some things and bad for others. Try not to sweat it; get your proficiencies and don't try grokking math beyond it. You'll be at the mercy of your DM more because of it, which is either a blessing or a curse depending on the DM. If it's a curse, though, I'd argue that playing a system where they can abuse you less badly isn't a good enough reason to play under them to begin with.

In essence? I know it says Dungeons & Dragons on the cover. And there's definitely some similarities to the editions of old. But pretend it doesn't say that. Pretend it's some totally different dungeon crawling game that happens to make references to another game you like. You'll be able to appreciate what it gets right better if you're not looking for 1:1 comparisons.

[JoeJ]

More from a DMing perspective, what's it like to design your own encounters? I know monsters aren't built with the same rules as PCs (Unlike in 3e) which I would think would make it harder to customize them.

It's actually vastly easier to customize NPCs because you don't have to keep track of anywhere near as many moving parts. No class abilities, or skill points, or feats. You don't have to worry about how many levels of this or that class. You just give them whatever specific abilities are needed for their role in the game. For example, I've got a twin brother and sister NPCs who are thieves. The girl can cast Arcane Lock at will and the boy can cast Knock at will (Their street names are Lock and Key). All I did for their game stats was take the Spy stat block in the MM and add a line for each about the spell. Neither of those spells affects the CR, so I was done.

[Garimeth]

More from a DMing perspective, what's it like to design your own encounters? I know monsters aren't built with the same rules as PCs (Unlike in 3e) which I would think would make it harder to customize them.

You can or you can not, PC based enemies are more lethal and die faster, kind of a rocket tag game, i usually start there and modify. Treating the monsters/npcs differently isn't a big deal in terms of difficulty ime.

The CR ratings make sense for the most part, but the "exp budget" of encounter design, imo, is trash. I very quickly just started saying "this is what is here, what do you do?" and not balancing encounters. Up to my players to decide how/when to engage. Our group likes this, though, and I do a fairly good job of telegraphing stuff so there have been some close calls but no TPKs or permanent deaths. EDIT: To be clear, if there were though, we'd all be fine with that.

3e had alot more resources for things like traps, etc, and you can more or less import most of them. I don't use traps often, but I think what IS in the DMG is not particularly great. Usable, not amazing.

All in all, from a DM standpoint, its a lot less work to run than 3e. My more power gamery players miss the 3.5 granularity and crunch. My other players wouldn't know the difference, but would probably have to be "assisted" in not making a trap character option in 3.5.

Party balance wise... its pretty difficult to make a useless PC, which as a DM, I appreciate. Makes balancing for the whole group easier.

[heavyfuel]

As someone who also came from 3e, the biggest difference I felt is that options are super constrained in 5e. If you like characters with a bunch on meaningful options, you have to play a full caster. Otherwise the biggest choice you'll ever make is "who do I attack next".

This was an issue (for me) back when I first played 5e at a similar time to your, and it's still an issue years later.

If you want the vast array of choices you had back in 3.5, find a DM that's willing to allow homebrew. It's my experience that - given 5e's "streamlineness" - more DMs are willing to accept it than back in 3.5


if you want more customization beyond that I reccommend something like a warlock which gets spells, invocations and a pact boon to choose from as well.

So many choices! Still gonna EB every round, tho :smallbiggrin:

[Waterdeep Merch]

As for the ability scores capping at 20, it's actually a blessing. In other editions, you pretty much just always improved your main stat unless you needed to meet a prerequisite. Since there's a cap, and that cap is easily reachable by level 8 with normal point buy (even earlier if you're a fighter or got lucky with rolled stats), you have a lot of incentive to improve other ability scores or ignore improving your main schtick immediately to get something else that's good for you. It's the one place where the restriction actually means that players will tend to get more creative with their builds, not less.

[Garimeth]

So many choices! Still gonna EB every round, tho :smallbiggrin:

OMG, so true. That's part of the problem, there is often a "best choice" for many classes or builds that rarely changes based on circumstances so the decision making mini-game during combat, imo, is not the most satisfying.

Highlight of my last session was when I had my twilight cleric use sleep. Just because.

Everyone else: what?

Me: Yeah I put those wolves to sleep. LOL. (Oh and I'll also keep flying, keep up spirit guardians, and throwing out temp HP, because since twilight cleric can do everything... ironically now I have LESS choices.)

[Unoriginal]

Last time I played 5e (in the Eberron setting), it wasn't really the best impression. I didn't get to write my own backstory, instead the DM had me roll on a table for it. Apparently my level 1 elven Wizard was a professor at an academy? Didn't make sense to me, and I wasn't at all prepared to roleplay that come session 1.

Well that backstory thing was a "your DM has an idea" thing, not a 5e thing. Most DMs let you choose your backstory and background, and even the PHB includes a "customize the mechanical benefits of your background" option.


More from a DMing perspective, what's it like to design your own encounters? I know monsters aren't built with the same rules as PCs (Unlike in 3e) which I would think would make it harder to customize them.

Personally I find it's far easier to customize them that way. You can just decide what the monsters' stats and abilities are, and then check how dangerous it makes them.

One thing that definitively is important to look out for is how the number of combatants has a big impact. A solo, powerful boss will often be overwhelmed by a group of PCs, while a horde of mooks can be way more lethal one might expect reading their individual statblock. And the deadliest kind of combat challenge is almost always one powerful boss + a whole bunch of mooks, because it forces the PCs to split their efforts and attention.

[heavyfuel]

OMG, so true. That's part of the problem, there is often a "best choice" for many classes or builds that rarely changes based on circumstances so the decision making mini-game during combat, imo, is not the most satisfying.

twilight cleric can do everything... ironically now I have LESS choices.

This is very true for 5e optimization in general. It's very easy to optimize yourself into a corner, where you only do one thing over and over again because that's clearly the best choice.

Someone (I wanna say Korvin, but I'm honestly not sure) mentioned a while ago this Sharpshooter Elven Accuracy BM Fighter whose only real option was attacking. With a huge chance to hit and massive damage, every other option just paled in comparison.

[MrStabby]

Last time I played 5e (in the Eberron setting), it wasn't really the best impression. I didn't get to write my own backstory, instead the DM had me roll on a table for it. Apparently my level 1 elven Wizard was a professor at an academy? Didn't make sense to me, and I wasn't at all prepared to roleplay that come session 1.

I didn't stick around because of schedule changes, but I noticed a lot of things from my native 3.5e were either streamlined or removed. The Monster Manual was published just after I left.

I didn't really like the changes from what I was used to, but what made it hardest of all for me to enjoy was what felt like a total loss of customization, at least at the time I was playing- down to not even being able to write my own backstory(which I think I more blame DM ineptitude for than anything).

What I've been seeing lately on youtube, it does seem like 5e has gotten better- though my experience with BG3 makes me highly skeptical, with the arbitrary cap on key ability scores at 15? (Ugly odd numbers....)

Yes there are a lot fewer options. It can be limiting but there is a lot of good stuff as well.

Games run smoother - less looking up stuff on a character sheet, less adding lots of +2 bonuses, less looking up the rules for something that happens once every three years.

The emphasis on rulings not rules interacts well with a system that has the right amount of crunch for that purpose - you can do the unexpected and the DM can fly with it. Less long pauses considering the implications of setting a precident.

The lack of options isn't too bad if otherwise there would be a power gulf between PCs. Most things you can build will be close enough over a range of levels up to about level 12 or so. There will be some spikes though - rogue at level 1, warlock and moon druid at level 2, shepherd druid at level 6, where a particular class will jump ahead for a little while but there are enough levers to pull that a DM can handle most of these (whether they should have to is a different matter).



More from a DMing perspective, what's it like to design your own encounters? I know monsters aren't built with the same rules as PCs (Unlike in 3e) which I would think would make it harder to customize them.

It is easy. So much easier. Vastly easier.

Things like the party's to hit bonuses tend to be in a narrow range so fewer wierd big asymetric effects on different PCs through different AC, fewer niche spells that need taking into consideration, narrower range of spells prepared/accessible for most casters on any given day anyway so a bit less unexpected. Turns are quicker but combat is usually decided by about the end of turn 2 rather than by initiative so if you misjudged a fight and it is too hard, the PCs have more scope to retreat but more likely they still prevail just at the cost of a lot more resources. TPKs happen still but the DM should be less surprised by them.

5th edition lets your PCs walk into a tavern, start a random bar fight and the DM can play it as if it were a fully prepared encounter that he/she had been expecting.

[MaxWilson]

More from a DMing perspective, what's it like to design your own encounters? I know monsters aren't built with the same rules as PCs (Unlike in 3e) which I would think would make it harder to customize them.

If you want to build adversaries on the PHB model you can, and that does indeed make it easier in some ways to customize them (in the sense that you just have to remember the delta, e.g. "this guy's a Diviner 9 but with 4 Portents instead of 2"), but if it's not simpler in a particular case you don't have to.

It's difficult to fine-tune encounters to force a particular outcome (e.g. "PCs will be almost-but-not-quite out of resources when this encounter completes") and in general I would say don't get invested in particular outcomes, build your game around contingencies instead (such as knowing whether you will tolerate TPK or not and what happens next when it occurs, e.g. their backup characters arrive on scene and get a chance to retrieve the dead-or-unconscious bodies of the primary PCs). But that's not unique to 5E, AFAIK D&D has always been that way except maybe in 4E.

Therefore, building encounter is less about numbers and calculations and more about eyeballing threats and making sure the bad guys have enough contingencies and counterplay vs. common PC threats to be interesting (e.g. add a couple of Counterspellers and an AoE threat to an encounter because of summoners and spellcasters, and maybe conceal both Counterspellers and half the monsters beyond standard 60' darkvision range when the PCs first arrive on-scene so players don't have complete information when they declare their round 1 actions), but also giving players enough freedom and options that they can still have fun. In general you cannot and should not expect monster CRs to tell you much about how tough the monsters will actually be for the PCs; use CR only for determining XP awarded. Rely on your experience (and your own arithmetic, e.g. calculating total monster HP and looking at monster stats to see which saves are weak and which conditions they're immune to) more than on CRs. Don't underestimate low-CR monsters; 40 kobolds is deadlier than one Iron Golem.


This is very true for 5e optimization in general. It's very easy to optimize yourself into a corner, where you only do one thing over and over again because that's clearly the best choice.

Someone (I wanna say Korvin, but I'm honestly not sure) mentioned a while ago this Sharpshooter Elven Accuracy BM Fighter whose only real option was attacking. With a huge chance to hit and massive damage, every other option just paled in comparison.

Even in that case, you still have to decide how and what to attack. E.g. sometimes you finish a tough fight where you just attacked the whole time, and then you realize, "Wow, that Githyanki Kithrak would have done a lot less damage if I'd Disarmed him via DMG Disarm at the beginning of the fight and taken his sword. He might have taken a lesser sword from a different Githyanki but it wouldn't have been as strong." Or you have a choice between breaking concentration on one spellcaster concentrating on Sickening Radiance or going nova to hopefully kill a different spellcaster who hasn't taken a turn yet. Also, you need to decide whether you're trying to soak your share of the monster DPR by getting close enough to melee, or stay on overwatch far away.

[Garimeth]

If you want to build adversaries on the PHB model you can, and that does indeed make it easier in some ways to customize them (in the sense that you just have to remember the delta, e.g. "this guy's a Diviner 9 but with 4 Portents instead of 2"), but if it's not simpler in a particular case you don't have to.

It's difficult to fine-tune encounters to force a particular outcome (e.g. "PCs will be almost-but-not-quite out of resources when this encounter completes") and in general I would say don't get invested in particular outcomes, build your game around contingencies instead (such as knowing whether you will tolerate TPK or not and what happens next when it occurs, e.g. their backup characters arrive on scene and get a chance to retrieve the dead-or-unconscious bodies of the primary PCs). But that's not unique to 5E, AFAIK D&D has always been that way except maybe in 4E.

Therefore, building encounter is less about numbers and calculations and more about eyeballing threats and making sure the bad guys have enough contingencies and counterplay vs. common PC threats to be interesting (e.g. add a couple of Counterspellers and an AoE threat to an encounter because of summoners and spellcasters, and maybe conceal both Counterspellers and half the monsters beyond standard 60' darkvision range when the PCs first arrive on-scene so players don't have complete information when they declare their round 1 actions), but also giving players enough freedom and options that they can still have fun. In general you cannot and should not expect monster CRs to tell you much about how tough the monsters will actually be for the PCs; use CR only for determining XP awarded. Rely on your experience (and your own arithmetic, e.g. calculating total monster HP and looking at monster stats to see which saves are weak and which conditions they're immune to) more than on CRs. Don't underestimate low-CR monsters; 40 kobolds is deadlier than one Iron Golem.



Even in that case, you still have to decide how and what to attack. E.g. sometimes you finish a tough fight where you just attacked the whole time, and then you realize, "Wow, that Githyanki Kithrak would have done a lot less damage if I'd Disarmed him via DMG Disarm at the beginning of the fight and taken his sword. He might have taken a lesser sword from a different Githyanki but it wouldn't have been as strong." Or you have a choice between breaking concentration on one spellcaster concentrating on Sickening Radiance or going nova to hopefully kill a different spellcaster who hasn't taken a turn yet. Also, you need to decide whether you're trying to soak your share of the monster DPR by getting close enough to melee, or stay on overwatch far away.

Good stuff here on the encounter building, OP.

Regarding the attacking, you are right, of course, but when your only choice on your turn comes down to who to attack and where to stand... for some people, not all, that is just not enough tactical depth to feel satisfying.

That's why its fun to not always give yourself the "best" options, because then you don't feel pressure to use them. At least, I know this is true for me, in the rare events I get to PC instead of DM.

[KorvinStarmast]

Someone (I wanna say Korvin, but I'm honestly not sure) mentioned a while ago this Sharpshooter Elven Accuracy BM Fighter whose only real option was attacking. With a huge chance to hit and massive damage, every other option just paled in comparison. I think that might have been Max; I don't recall making that observation, but the point you raise on 'optimizing yourself into a corner' is a real risk if charop is one's goal.

I personally prefer to have some complementary abilities to contribute to the party.

One of the players I DM for takes a different approach: "I am here to kill stuff. Point me at them."

He has simplified the game for himself. :smallcool:

[MaxWilson]

I think that might have been Max; I don't recall making that observation, but the point you raise on 'optimizing yourself into a corner' is a real risk if charop is one's goal.

Couldn't have been me because I would never have said that.

[Garimeth]

Couldn't have been me because I would never have said that.

No, I'm pretty sure it was either LudicSavant or a thread he was active in, and I am almost positive it was a samurai not a BM (for fighting spirit elven advantage accuracy) also BMs can choose a little more than just attacking.

THAT SAID, I totally got the point he was trying to make so didn't bother mentioning all this then, which is that you can CHAROP paint yourself into a corner. Its why I start with my character RP concept first, and then try to optimize it.

But, I still ended up with a twilight cleric...

but its a wereraven Haunted One twilight cleric that worships the Night Mother in a CoS game, so meh, I get a kick out of RPing him.

[heavyfuel]

I think that might have been Max; I don't recall making that observation

Could've been...


Couldn't have been me because I would never have said that.

...or not :smallbiggrin:

I'll see if I can find that particular post to try to clear the air.

[Garimeth]

Could've been...



...or not :smallbiggrin:

I'll see if I can find that particular post to try to clear the air.

I'm almost positive it was referenced in the recent thread on Paladin TWF. I don't tend to read alot of optimization threads, and I post in even fewer of them.

[Willie the Duck]

I didn't stick around because of schedule changes, but I noticed a lot of things from my native 3.5e were either streamlined or removed. The Monster Manual was published just after I left.
...
What I've been seeing lately on youtube, it does seem like 5e has gotten better- though my experience with BG3 makes me highly skeptical, with the arbitrary cap on key ability scores at 15? (Ugly odd numbers....)

More from a DMing perspective, what's it like to design your own encounters? I know monsters aren't built with the same rules as PCs (Unlike in 3e) which I would think would make it harder to customize them.
Preemptive asterisks for minor points
*Cutting the part about backstory because that had nothing to do with 5e so much as your DM.
**3.5/PFs has an optional point-buy attribute model, as well as a 'standard array' of attributes you can use such that all the PCs start with the same basic allotment. 5e has this as well. It is optional. This too is not particularly 5e-specific

5e is, if you are coming from a 3e perspective, and depending on your point of view, either a game that is fixed by cutting the excesses of 3e or ruined by removing all the knobs and levers and buttons that made 3e fun (or both). In many ways* it is the same model, just pared down at the extremes. There are uber-options (both 'broken' and merely 'optimal choice'), but most of them are fairly obvious and the DM can decide what they consider acceptable. There are trap options, but not nearly as much as 3e, and -- although full casters do take off near the end -- each role (if not every potential build concept) is playable throughout.
*In lots of other ways it isn't that, since the game is not specifically D&D 3.76 or the like, but its own thing, borrowing from all the previous editions, plus a few new things (or at least new to D&D) as well.

Encounter design is the same struggle as any other edition -- any pretense that 'challenge to the players' can be codified into a single number is a charade to begin with and the 5e CR system isn't especially worse than the 3e one. 3e allowed you to massively customize monsters within the framework (pretending that it won't change the effective CR), whereas after a point 5e will just say to add and subtract stuff as you see fit and eyeballing a CR modification as needed.


OMG, so true. That's part of the problem, there is often a "best choice" for many classes or builds that rarely changes based on circumstances so the decision making mini-game during combat, imo, is not the most satisfying.


This is very true for 5e optimization in general. It's very easy to optimize yourself into a corner, where you only do one thing over and over again because that's clearly the best choice.

Someone (I wanna say Korvin, but I'm honestly not sure) mentioned a while ago this Sharpshooter Elven Accuracy BM Fighter whose only real option was attacking. With a huge chance to hit and massive damage, every other option just paled in comparison.

I don't feel that this is especially worse in 5e than 3e. Both conspire to make you make a build optimized for a specific course of action, then find as many ways as possible to make that course of action useful. 3e martial fighters, for instance, tend to fall into roughly uber-charger, crit-fisher, and spiked-chain AoO trip-machines, and apparently a lot of people really like that. Last time I wandered into the 3e forum, there was a thread on ridiculous consequences of 3e and I pointed out how it encouraged just repeatedly spamming trips and was told I must not know anything about real world combat (and some other implied deprecation) since I didn't think that was the greatest thing ever.

[Unoriginal]

Encounter design is the same struggle as any other edition -- any pretense that 'challenge to the players' can be codified into a single number is a charade to begin with and the 5e CR system isn't especially worse than the 3e one.

Worth noting that 5e does not engage with this charade, the 5e CR is more a calculation of "against what group of PCs can this creature last three rounds while dealing negligible/moderate/dangerous/lethal amount of damage?".

[MaxWilson]

Worth noting that 5e does not engage with this charade, the 5e CR is more a calculation of "against what group of PCs can this creature last three rounds while dealing negligible/moderate/dangerous/lethal amount of damage?".

It doesn't even measure _that_ except under specific assumptions about party composition. The way accuracy trades off against damage, or AC against HP, is very strange, and the accounting for special abilities like paralyzation is just terrible, in the context of the encounter difficulty estimation rules.

CR is overconstrained--for most monsters there is no accurate value you could assign to CR that would result in the encounter difficulty formula spitting out accurate values for accuracy combination of monsters.

[heavyfuel]

I don't feel that this is especially worse in 5e than 3e. Both conspire to make you make a build optimized for a specific course of action, then find as many ways as possible to make that course of action useful. 3e martial fighters, for instance, tend to fall into roughly uber-charger, crit-fisher, and spiked-chain AoO trip-machines, and apparently a lot of people really like that. Last time I wandered into the 3e forum, there was a thread on ridiculous consequences of 3e and I pointed out how it encouraged just repeatedly spamming trips and was told I must not know anything about real world combat (and some other implied deprecation) since I didn't think that was the greatest thing ever.

INB4 "martials in 5e are versatile! you just have to get creative!"

Yeah, in 3e you certainly can optmize yourself into a corner, or you can play a Martial Initiator. Or any number of classes that are plenty versatile, but not "full caster" versatile.

Off the top of my head: all three martial initiator classes, warlocks, duskblades, bards ("half casters" in 3.5), totemists, rogues (since Magic Items were expected you could play with a bunch of Wands and Scrolls), Spirit Shaman, and Shugenja (these last two are technically full casters, but not nearly as powerful/versatile as the Core full casters) could all be very versatile with the some optimization.

And then some other classes that require a lot of optimization to work, but are pretty cool once you get the ball rolling like Truenamer or Shadowcraft Mage

Sidenote: Trip-spamming don't really work by 3.5 RAW, at least not the way a lot builds assume it does (you can't trip someone during the Opportunity Attack they provoke when trying to stand up)

[Clistenes]

Last time I played 5e (in the Eberron setting), it wasn't really the best impression. I didn't get to write my own backstory, instead the DM had me roll on a table for it. Apparently my level 1 elven Wizard was a professor at an academy? Didn't make sense to me, and I wasn't at all prepared to roleplay that come session 1.

That's not 5e's problem, that's your DM's problem...

You are not required to roll a background in 5e, you can pick one or even customize it...

[Waterdeep Merch]

That's not 5e's problem, that's your DM's problem...

You are not required to roll a background in 5e, you can pick one or even customize it...

That's a really important point a lot of people miss about 5e, even people that have played it for years; the backgrounds you find in the books are considered samples. Crafting your own is actually the default.