What is AWESOME about 5e?

[Borria]

With all the speculation about the next update to 5e, I've seen a lot of criticism of the system and comparison to older editions of the game. So, i ask you, what parts of the game are things that 5e has gotten right? In 20 years when we are.playing 6.5 or 7e or whatever, what will we be nostalgic about from 5e the way people talk about AD&D, 2e or 3e now? I don't have much to add since this is my first edition of the game, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

[Sigreid]

IMO the biggest strength of 5e is you don't generally need to spend a lot of time looking up obscure rules or consulting tables and can, once you have a decent grasp of the system, can just focus on playing the game.

[Yakmala]

Having played D&D dating back to the original white box set, and many other RPG systems in-between, I’d say that the greatest strength of 5e is the streamlined rules, leading to a lower barrier of entry for players new to the role playing hobby and faster paced combat and skill resolution with less bookkeeping to determine results.

The best example of this is the Advantage and Disadvantage system. No more determining how much each individual factor contributes to a roll or debating the total positive and negative elements. You either just have advantage or just have disadvantage. Or, if you have both, regardless of how many in each column, they cancel each other out and you roll as normal. Simple, fast and effective.

[Ryton]

While a part of me misses the intricacies possible of character creation in older editions, once you understand character creation in 5e it's pretty easy to go from having an idea to completely building the character at basically any level within about ten minutes. Granted, spell selections and multiclassing quandaries can extend that, but generally it's very easy and very fast to roll up a new character.

Gone are the days of looking for a feat in Complete Arcane, only for it actually be in Complete Mage, and wait, was that spell updated in the Spell Compendium? Oh, and this prestige class is entirely available online on the Wizards site, but technically was never printed, can I use that?

[PhoenixPhyre]

IMO the biggest strength of 5e is you don't generally need to spend a lot of time looking up obscure rules or consulting tables and can, once you have a decent grasp of the system, can just focus on playing the game.

And that "a descent grasp of the system" comes really really quickly. I've had kids (age 10-ish) pick up enough to play and even DM moderately well after a single session. Distracted adults may take 3-5 sessions.

And if you get rules wrong or ignore even large swaths of things, the system doesn't fall apart or run aground.

[DigoDragon]

I do like the online support, with sites like D&D Beyond for those of us who have trouble getting a local group.

[Chaos Jackal]

5e generally doesn't have particularly high highs.

I guess the most "awesome" thing about it is that it also doesn't have very low lows. Like, it might be lacking in content in certain areas, be simplistic rather than simple in others and other similar cases, but it doesn't outright suck in most regards. Its simplicity is both a strength and a weakness, but at least it's not that massive a weakness (though I'd still take the greater flaws of 3.X to have their greater perks).

Otherwise, what is indeed kinda "awesome" is that so many people are playing it, you'll generally not be wanting for a group. Sure, a lot of those people are just dabbing and/or are ignorant or indifferent (and the community has a rather hostile attitude towards system mastery and criticism), but at least you have options, in many cases even outside the internet. It might not be an amazing game, but it's a game you can play. Better than an amazing game you don't have the chance to play.

[Eldariel]

It's everyone's second preference. Thus, it allows for playing with a ton of different people (though of course, it might still be hard to fit extremes in the same table). A huge player base is certainly its most awesome feature, though it comes at the cost of suffocating most other systems since the common ground is generally 5e.

[Imbalance]

This edition ushered in the golden age of miniatures and tabletop terrain. Everything else is just theory and paperwork.

[Arkhios]

IMHO, 5e is easily the most versatile edition, ever.

[Willie the Duck]

Accessibility would be a big thing. New people can get into it easily (compared to, say, 3e, where you are choosing a feat from a multi-dozen-long list at during character creation for your first character) and stick around long enough to experience some exhilarating moments (BX and BECMI are quick to make a character, but those early levels are a meat-grinder).

[noob]

IMHO, 5e is easily the most versatile edition, ever.

No it is not: it have a way stricter balance than older editions thus restraining massively the kind of homebrew you can do in it.
What is good is that if you are not using homebrew then it is way easier to have a balanced party than in previous editions minus 4e.

[Xervous]

No it is not: it have a way stricter balance than older editions thus restraining massively the kind of homebrew you can do in it.
What is good is that if you are not using homebrew then it is way easier to have a balanced party than in previous editions minus 4e.

You’re free to homebrew whatever though. WotC isn’t going to cease and desist your keister, your players won’t be pointing to a passage in a book that says you’re doing it wrong.

The community may gripe over balance or implementation but that’s what happens when you field opinions to the masses.

[KorvinStarmast]

Having played D&D dating back to the original white box set, and many other RPG systems in-between, I’d say that the greatest strength of 5e is the streamlined rules, leading to a lower barrier of entry for players new to the role playing hobby and faster paced combat and skill resolution with less bookkeeping to determine results. With a similar background, I agree that this is a strength.

The best example of this is the Advantage and Disadvantage system. {snip} Simple, fast and effective. Yep


Otherwise, what is indeed kinda "awesome" is that so many people are playing it, you'll generally not be wanting for a group. {snip} Better than an amazing game you don't have the chance to play. Yeah, funny how the worship at the altar of systems mastery was a self inflicted wound. :smalltongue:

Here is what I like about 5e: easy to pick up, difficult to master. It's got a dialable difficulty, and dialable mastery mode. You can set the threshold easily within a wide spectrum of boundaries as a DM. I really like that.

[Unoriginal]

With all the speculation about the next update to 5e, I've seen a lot of criticism of the system and comparison to older editions of the game. So, i ask you, what parts of the game are things that 5e has gotten right? In 20 years when we are.playing 6.5 or 7e or whatever, what will we be nostalgic about from 5e the way people talk about AD&D, 2e or 3e now? I don't have much to add since this is my first edition of the game, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

What is awesome about D&D 5e is that it is D&D and loves being D&D, while making it easier to play D&D.

Is it perfect? No. But you still get a D&D in all its epicness and campiness, without being afraid to look at its past or at its future.

[strangebloke]

It's accessible, with loads of free material through the OGL and various UAs and previews
It's easy to pick up and play, there's very little extra bookkeeping for DMs and I can build a whole dungeon in an hour.
It's even easier for players.
Compared to previous DND editions there's almost no trap options meaning you can do whatever you like without penalty
All these factors have led to it being a super widespread game that its trivial to find players for, which is amazing.



No it is not: it have a way stricter balance than older editions thus restraining massively the kind of homebrew you can do in it.
What is good is that if you are not using homebrew then it is way easier to have a balanced party than in previous editions minus 4e.

:smallconfused:

Isn't it the other way around? If we assume that there's a level of tolerable imbalance, and 5e is considerably more balanced than that, doesn't that make it easier to add content? Even if you release a subclass like the twilight cleric that's hilariously overtuned its still not going to be massively out of line with everything else. Not to the point of 3.5-level "tiers" anyway.

[OldTrees1]

The best thing about 5E is there are these optional rules that let you multiclass on a level by level basis.

It is really easy to underestimate the blessing of that optional capability.

Although that is not unique to 5E.


For things unique to 5E?

Cunning Action is new.
Caster/caster multiclassing has improved by adding combined scaling.

Otherwise most of the good in 5E is refining or building on what came before.

[Tvtyrant]

Bounded Accuracy and relatively simple character sheets makes it so making characters and fights is relatively quick and easy compared to the last three editions. The system is comprehendible and fairly forgiving, compared to say 4E where the best thing you could be doing was stacking +1s to hit and damage instead of anything fun or 3.5 where it took hours to make a single character sheet.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's everyone's second preference.

Personally, of the editions (and games) I've played, it's my strong first preference. I'd love to play 4e again but this time with a dedicated party who leans heavily into the tactical combat, and I won't play PF/3e again unless there's really really strong incentives.

5e does everything I want from a system at a base level (while I disagree with some of the content) and is flexible enough that I can tweak it.

[Sigreid]

Personally, of the editions (and games) I've played, it's my strong first preference. I'd love to play 4e again but this time with a dedicated party who leans heavily into the tactical combat, and I won't play PF/3e again unless there's really really strong incentives.

5e does everything I want from a system at a base level (while I disagree with some of the content) and is flexible enough that I can tweak it.

Personally, for decades I've played exclusively with friends. Which game we play is not anywhere near as important a factor as that we're playing.

[J-H]

-Speed/simplicity for the DM
-Class balance. "I want to do X, what class should I pick" threads typically get several classes/subclasses suggested to fulfill a particular character fantasy.

[Unoriginal]

Personally, of the editions (and games) I've played, it's my strong first preference.

Strongly seconded.

[Psyren]

I felt they really hit the sweet spot of depth for the veterans and simplicity for the newcomers. They're also, via things like Tasha's, displaying a healthy willingness to print officially sanctioned buffs and tweaks when they feel they missed the mark.

[Dualswinger]

That more people are playing DND than ever before! <3

[clash]

Subclasses are hands down my favorite part of the game. The ability to specialize without reading anything but your own class. I love character building but I much prefer subclasses over prestige classes.

[Sillybird99]

Simplicity with things like advantage and proficiency bonus are awesome changes. Subclasses are a neat way to handle the prestige class issue of 3.5. I still think it takes way too long to make a character and onboarding a new player though.

[noob]

[LIST]

:smallconfused:

Isn't it the other way around? If we assume that there's a level of tolerable imbalance, and 5e is considerably more balanced than that, doesn't that make it easier to add content? Even if you release a subclass like the twilight cleric that's hilariously overtuned its still not going to be massively out of line with everything else. Not to the point of 3.5-level "tiers" anyway.

The issue is that the level of tolerated balance depends on the table.
The level of tolerated balance a table will take will generally depend on what the base game allowed.
Ex: you can find a 3.5 table where they allow a STP erudite that cast all the spells at will(possible by raw and some tables literally allowed divine minion and other silly things) and that would refuse a monk that does nothing.
You can as well find a 3.5 table where a fighter that does not spends half of its turns dropping and grabbing back the same sword between two attacks would be considered op.
If you do a 3.5 homebrew it will basically always fit just right a specific table no matter how powerful or weak it is.
Since 5E have a much tighter range of powers the variation of tolerated power at the tables is likewise much lower because players are used to play the base classes and it shapes their vision of power level.
So if you do a class that cast all the spells at will in 5e it will be considered massively op by all 5e tables while some 3.5 tables would think "seems fair" and likewise if you do a 5e class whose description is "d4 hd,proficiency in nothing, no class features, no asis" then the vast majority of the 5e tables would consider it too weak and not fitting at their tables while some 3.5 tables would accept it and consider it is fitting.
Making homebrew that players likes is incredibly harder in 5e than in 3.5.

It is like how mutants and masterminds will generally accept much more powerful character than for example call of chtulu: many games set expectations of the ranges of power of the characters and thus restrains what is tolerated but 3.5 does not do so due to how broken the balance of 3.5 is.

Having a balance and/or power ranges sets up expectations on homebrew content.

It is ultimately good for a game where competition ends up being ingrained in the minds of the players for it to have reasonable power ranges and tons of 3.5 horror stories comes from competition between the players ending up badly specifically due to excessively wide power ranges thus creating jealousy and other problems: always check in session 0 if the power variation of the players is not going to be problematic and possibly set a tighter power range than what 3.5 defines because it is way too wide(Or play 5e and have the awesomeness of the game managing itself the power range).

[No brains]

The BEST thing about Hero Ques- oops. Excuse me.

Speaking as someone who had limited exposure to previous editions (with the most experience in 4e), the thing that strikes me about 5e is the small inclusion of rp-based benefits to builds. I didn't see them as much in earlier editions.

Backgrounds allow a degree of versatility to any concept and give you a reason to care about where your character came from. Your background benefits, like rustic hospitality, position of privilege, and criminal contact give you a way to play your character beyond being a roving murder machine. Largely, these features give the murder machine a place to park, but it gives a baby step into RP for those willing to take it.

Another step you can take is the integration of Personality Traits and Inspiration. I've yet to have a DM who was big on this, but having those times when it mechanically pays off to have been in character is a nice little treat that helps my characters feel more like 'heroes'.

One of the good things I like most about these loose RP-incentives is that they are loose. If you want to take a Friday night to paint the walls with goblins, you can still do that. But if you've got friends who like to give speeches and do voices, then they get a paint roller to help you with.

[Kane0]

It has an excellent blend of accessibility, depth, balance and customisability. Not perfect in any of those areas, but good.

[Pex]

Particular game mechanics changes compared to previous versions of the game:

The ability to move as far as you want to do whatever you want, especially multiple attacks for warriors. The ability to move, do something, and move some more. You have absolute freedom on your turn to do your Thing.

Warriors do not suffer any penalty for the audacity of making their non-first attack on their turn.

Damage Cantrips increasing in power with respect to level. It gives spellcasters something useful to do in combat to conserve spell slots. They make you feel like a spellcaster because it is aesthetically pleasing to cast a spell rather than fire a crossbow.

[Waterdeep Merch]

It's core strength is elegance. It's not the easiest system, and it isn't the most customizable either. But the options it manages to deliver in a simplified manner, specifically, is what I would call elegant about it.

Any game like this affords options at the cost of complexity. 5e offers a good number of options at a surprisingly low complexity. This is the main reason I primarily run 5e games- because of the lightweight main system, I can very easily add new subsystems to get whatever complexity I feel I need for a given game without overwhelming my players. Well, usually. My players make jokes about me introducing new subsystems every week. Hyperbole, I assure you.

I used to do this in 3.x as well, and it was never this simple. And I briefly tried with 4e before realizing the unreasonable complexity made it a chore. It's the same reason I've been very, very cautious about touching PF2e. I meddle with my games to achieve unique things, and 5e makes this very easy to do. I've run a few AD&D and 2e modules straight from the book in 5e just by modifying things on the fly.

It also helps that it's caught on with the zeitgeist and the internet has allowed many other creators to publish materials I can instantly access with just a few clicks. I own somewhere around a hundred different third party materials for 5e, most of it digital and all of it cheap and easy to obtain for anyone that might want it. I own three different alchemy systems for 5e alone, each one good in their own right. I mix and match these with my own work to quickly frankenstein the sort of game best suited to the experience I want to present. Not even 3.x with it's endless splats was this simple.

[Kane0]

It's core strength is elegance. It's not the easiest system, and it isn't the most customizable either. But the options it manages to deliver in a simplified manner, specifically, is what I would call elegant about it.

Any game like this affords options at the cost of complexity. 5e offers a good number of options at a surprisingly low complexity. This is the main reason I primarily run 5e games- because of the lightweight main system, I can very easily add new subsystems to get whatever complexity I feel I need for a given game without overwhelming my players. Well, usually. My players make jokes about me introducing new subsystems every week. Hyperbole, I assure you.

I used to do this in 3.x as well, and it was never this simple. And I briefly tried with 4e before realizing the unreasonable complexity made it a chore. It's the same reason I've been very, very cautious about touching PF2e. I meddle with my games to achieve unique things, and 5e makes this very easy to do. I've run a few AD&D and 2e modules straight from the book in 5e just by modifying things on the fly.

It also helps that it's caught on with the zeitgeist and the internet has allowed many other creators to publish materials I can instantly access with just a few clicks. I own somewhere around a hundred different third party materials for 5e, most of it digital and all of it cheap and easy to obtain for anyone that might want it. I own three different alchemy systems for 5e alone, each one good in their own right. I mix and match these with my own work to quickly frankenstein the sort of game best suited to the experience I want to present. Not even 3.x with it's endless splats was this simple.

Seconded in its entirety.

[kingcheesepants]

Now granted this may simply be the fact that it's newer and bigger but I personally love how easy it is to make and find groups online and the amount of free online tools and materials to make playing really easy. Things like Roll20, Foundry, D&D beyond, Discord bots, etc etc. Being able to just import your NPCs and maps and tokens and roll some dice is just so much easier than it was back in the day. Seriously if I have a day off and I feel like playing some D&D I can go onto a discord server and have a game up and running within the hour. Small chance of being able to do that with any other system. I love some other RPGs but even if they are mechanically fairly simple (like Blades in the Dark) they still take more effort to set up than a D&D 5e game.

[Zuras]

5e is awesome because it packs a lot of crunch into a very streamlined package. It gives players a wide variety of different buttons to push without getting bogged down in details that end up being irrelevant or secondary, and gives new GMs enough structure they can run a solid game despite their lack of experience.

It’s like a sports car with a useable trunk. It doesn’t sound particularly impressive, but means you can actually use it for running errands, so you get to drive it significantly more often.

[Gtdead]

Awesome is not a word I'd use to describe 5e. Mature is the one that comes to mind.

It has a simple and effective framework that every player can understand by just reading the basics. Action economy is tightly locked and in a manner that makes sense. There isn't any distinction between full round and standard actions for example. You always get your actions as presented in the basic rules and their availability depends on the class and the ability description, not circumstances (like moving before the attack). Also level scaling has been streamlined and everything scales of proficiency bonus which is way easier to keep track than save and bab charts.

Subclass makes building characters a lot easier. Also feats are more focused on utility rather than mathematical increases. No more weapon foci, improved/greater versions of feats, etc. You get a power attack feat for melee and ranged, an action economy feat for melee and ranged, and everything else is essentially utility and defense. This decreases the "arm's race" effect of 3.5e. Even if you don't take these feats, your character will be able to contribute, although "feat taxes" still exist for some classes if you want to optimize.

The math clatter is eliminated. You can easily theorycraft anything by doing simple calculations without having to take into account iterative attacks with different BAB for example. Advantage/Disadvantage is a very elegant feature that is impactful and fairly intuitive even if a new comer can't really grasp the full extend easily. Also bounded accuracy makes simulations a lot easier because it doesn't have the bloated numbers and ranges of 3.5e.

Excessive buffing is dead. Concentration made sure of it, but buffing in general has a very different approach. You don't get all these static boni that increase your attack/damage/defense anymore. It's a more active process, and you have to decide which buffs to use depending on the occasion. You don't stack Bless and Haste, you decide between the two. You don't stack AC and defensive advantage, you decide between the two. No more persistent metamagic monstrosities and prebuffing is way less important, which speeds things up a lot. Classes/builds that can perform at 100% from round 1 without prebuffing are very valuable and that's what the focus of optimization should be in this edition.

I would use the word "awesome" to describe certain powerful abilities of certain classes. Due to this edition being fairly streamlined and balanced, there are only a few things that are really "overpowered" and it's very satisfying to find combinations that break the mold and really do something impressive by themselves. For example, managing to find a way to consistently fire off two sneak attacks per round is great and really precious. Making an effective Gish with good action economy is also a very difficult prospect.

[Kurt Kurageous]

With a similar background, I agree that this is a strength.
Yep

Yeah, funny how the worship at the altar of systems mastery was a self inflicted wound. :smalltongue:

Here is what I like about 5e: easy to pick up, difficult to master. It's got a dialable difficulty, and dialable mastery mode. You can set the threshold easily within a wide spectrum of boundaries as a DM. I really like that.

Ditto, Korvin.

It does, at times, annoy me as a DM, but it allows for a lot of creativity and fresh approaches to presenting mystery, conflicts, and problems for players to figure out. Which is amazing when so much is accessible for free online. Sure, everyone knows the statblock of the generic beastie, but the DM can easily modify, reskin, or otherwise make the old troll new.


I meddle with my games to achieve unique things, and 5e makes this very easy to do. I've run a few AD&D and 2e modules straight from the book in 5e just by modifying things on the fly.

I've been able to port entire adventures from other systems into 5e because of this. Talk about replayability!

[Demonslayer666]

With all the speculation about the next update to 5e, I've seen a lot of criticism of the system and comparison to older editions of the game. So, i ask you, what parts of the game are things that 5e has gotten right? In 20 years when we are.playing 6.5 or 7e or whatever, what will we be nostalgic about from 5e the way people talk about AD&D, 2e or 3e now? I don't have much to add since this is my first edition of the game, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

Inspiration is my most liked thing that come out of 5th.

Simplifying Opportunity attacks has also helped to speed up combat, but that's more getting rid of something. Let's call it rules simplification.

Other things that are good: archetypes, exhaustion levels (more conditions need levels), prepared spells and slots.

Rests were good at the start, but the more I've played with it, the less I like how they work.

[loki_ragnarock]

Awesome:
- Abandoning the principle of System Mastery.
If I play a barbarian and you play a barbarian, chances are neither of us played a barbarian that was useless. If I play a fighter and you play a fighter, chances are neither of us played a fighter that was useless. Not every option is super optimal, but there's nothing that screams of 3e's Toughness feat. Which is to say; the choice might not be optimal, but there aren't many traps to fall into that render you nigh worthless.

- Bounded Accuracy.
I can use the entire Monster Manual when I DM. I don't have to chase every last fiddly ass bonus to be viable when I play a character. If ya'll didn't play 3.0/Pathfinder, let me tell ya; an orc is incapable of doing damage to a tenth level character in those editions, simply because the AC to BAB disparity is so high. Unless, of course, you spent *hours* building a bunch of orcs with Character Levels, a process of futility because you now had to look up twenty things (thanks to system mastery nonsense) to produce a viable, but *ultimately disposable* challenge.
But this edition? If I grab fifty orcs and put them on the table, people are going to sweat a little. There's not as much standing among them as all fifty great axes bounce off you because your numbers have made you invulnerable to harm. It's doable now, but those are some serious edge cases and you generally built for it.

- Generally less fiddly bull$%^&
Hey! You know what's great for determining if something hits? AC! You know what isn't? 3 types of AC, that are all ultimately worthless when compared to straight up generating a "miss chance" (that also somehow stacks with AC) via a low level spell. You know what's great about spells that tell you what they do? Not having to look up/memorize starvation/dehydration rules because someone cast Cup of Dust again, but didn't include the effects of the starvation/dehydration status in the actual spell description. No summation of the various circumstantial things that can add a +2 here and another one that gives a +1 there; just advantage when you have an advantage and disadvantage when you don't. Beautiful.


Things I don't like about 5e:
They are totally $%^&ing up the principles of bounded accuracy the further along they go.

Stop it, guys. Stop it.

[Bjarkmundur]

I love that it's so simple that I can spend my time tweaking it, rather than trying to master a complicated system.


I mean, everyone is allowed to homebrew, so it's much better to have a system that does less and allows the players to add the fluff THEY want.

Whenever I see a post on here disagreeing with 5e rules or content I just laugh and think "just change it then".


Character creation is on elf my favorite thing too!

[Pex]

Whenever I see a post on here disagreeing with 5e rules or content I just laugh and think "just change it then".



That doesn't alter the issue of disagreeing with 5E rules or content.

[BoutsofInsanity]

The BIG ONE for me that I only now understand after having sunk deep into the rule set of 5e is how pure the rules are.

I have a knack for systems and 5e is the easiest system for me, to be able to adjudicate anything quickly at the table. Taken as a whole, it's elegance, simplicity, and focused content has allowed me to be able to do whatever I want in the game. Because it all flows together so well.

There are no glaring holes or issues I can't fix with just a little bit of work. Add in Gritty Realism as a rule set and it's my favorite RPG by a long shot.

Easy to Homebrew just about anything
Easy to make custom monsters
Easy to adjudicate any action
Easy to put new subsystems on like Gritty Realism, Horror, Stress etc...
Setting Agnostic, you can pretty quickly run it in Science Fiction, Gaslight, Star Wars, Sword and Sorcery, etc...

[EggKookoo]

I saw a review out there once that started off by saying "5e is the best version of 3e" and I can't really disagree with that.

What's awesome about it? I like that it approaches complexity from a position of simplicity, rather than starting at complexity. Meaning it only gets as complex as it has to. Or at least that's its intention -- like everything else under the sun it's not perfect and there are definitely things I would have done differently (and have, in the form of houserules). But that's the goal and I think 5e mostly hits it.

The thing that caught my attention was the "reaction" mechanic. I doubt 5e invented that, but I was running a 3e campaign at the time and I was trying to come up with a way to let players take actions when it's not their turn. Then I saw an overview of 5e and it mentioned the reaction, and that was that. I also really like that PCs are built around player needs and NPCs are built around DM needs.


There are no glaring holes or issues I can't fix with just a little bit of work.

To that point, 5e feels like it wants me to build my own personal utility belt of rulings. It gives me a feeling of ownership over my own campaign. Older editions felt like they didn't want you to do that, or at most were indifferent to you doing that. 5e cheers you on.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I also really like that PCs are built around player needs and NPCs are built around DM needs.

This. Makes putting things together so much easier. As well as taking a stock stat block and subbing out things like weapons, etc without having to re-juggle all the feats, etc to make it effective. I just have to say "ok, it's got a pike now". Even spells and spell-casting is just a drop-in add-on. I can bolt spell-casting (or rather a modified set of features + n/day free casts[1]) onto any NPC/monster without having to change anything else and it just works.

[1] one of the few things from the upcoming "monster overhaul" I was very pleased with.

[tyckspoon]

The thing that caught my attention was the "reaction" mechanic. I doubt 5e invented that, but I was running a 3e campaign at the time and I was trying to come up with a way to let players take actions when it's not their turn. Then I saw an overview of 5e and it mentioned the reaction, and that was that. I also really like that PCs are built around player needs and NPCs are built around DM needs.

3E (3.5? I think the 3E phrasing for these was something silly like 'free action that you can take when it's not your turn but only 1/turn' - see the original phrasing for things like Quicken Spell and Featherfall) had these in the concept of Swift Actions and specifically Immediate Actions, but they were an after the fact hack on the system and were never really very well integrated into the previous action economy and turn structure. Having a defined "this is what you use to respond to somebody else" action as part of the system from the start certainly does help make it work better.

[dafrca]

One of the things I love the best about 5e was the way they approached the playtest. Allowing us, the various fans, to have a say in the overall process. Not saying we always got what we wanted or that they were forced to go with 'majority rule' or anything. But they were open to conversations. Reached out at times for clarifications or posted follow up ideas to see what out take was on the adjustments. In the end, like or dislike the new rule set as a whole, it was a wonderful experience to be part of and watch play out. So in the end I will always have a soft spot in my heart for 5e that is different than that held by any other TTRPG rule set. :smallsmile:

[Bosh]

For me at least it's complicated enough that my 12 year-old son can nerd out about different builds so we can spend a whole long hike talking about what would be the best dip for a given subclass or what character would be a good fellow party member for what other character but also simple enough that a 12 year-old can do that.

[DocVal]

I think the best thing 5e has done is make it easier for non table top RPG players to get immersed in it. The simple bits like adding the other races tab or the background chapter in the PHB goes along way to help new players develop a character from the ground up not just the "build" but the actual person they are playing.

I think especially as fewer and fewer people read the book like Drizzit or Dragonlance books the ability to jump in to the was much needed.

[EggKookoo]

For me at least it's complicated enough that my 12 year-old son can nerd out about different builds so we can spend a whole long hike talking about what would be the best dip for a given subclass or what character would be a good fellow party member for what other character but also simple enough that a 12 year-old can do that.

I'll second this. I got my now-10 daughter playing it, and she picked up the basics pretty quickly. I have trouble believing she would have done it so easily with previous editions.

[Twelvetrees]

I really like how much faster 5e is to run than previous editions I've played, especially the fights. I can wrap up a combat in 20 minutes at low levels and maybe an hour and high levels.

Fights used to take 2+ hours to run because there were tons of fiddly little modifiers to keep track of and every ability had to be looked up in a rule book to see how it interacted with another ability.



- Bounded Accuracy.
I can use the entire Monster Manual when I DM.
Yes. I love this aspect of 5e. All too often with previous editions, I felt like I was limited to a small subsection of the Monster Manual.

I don't feel that way with 5e. If I give an ancient dragon some kobold followers, I know the kobolds aren't going to be worthless.

The only way I've found this system to be lacking is when I want to use multiple high CR monsters. A balor with a couple goristro bodyguards and a marilith accompanying them is too much.

[Arkhios]

For me at least it's complicated enough that my 12 year-old son can nerd out about different builds so we can spend a whole long hike talking about what would be the best dip for a given subclass or what character would be a good fellow party member for what other character but also simple enough that a 12 year-old can do that.


I'll second this. I got my now-10 daughter playing it, and she picked up the basics pretty quickly. I have trouble believing she would have done it so easily with previous editions.

Complexity doesn't necessarily correlate with difficulty (I'm not trying to belittle your kids, mind you!)

5th edition is certainly complex in it's own way, but all the individual parts are simple enough, and I'd argue 5th edition's built-in "layers" are much more "light-weight" than in any of the previous editions (if that makes any sense).

[EggKookoo]

Complexity doesn't necessarily correlate with difficulty (I'm not trying to belittle your kids, mind you!)

5th edition is certainly complex in it's own way, but all the individual parts are simple enough, and I'd argue 5th edition's built-in "layers" are much more "light-weight" than in any of the previous editions (if that makes any sense).

I think that's it exactly. The way 5e approaches someone new to the game is different from how earlier editions did. If not in a matter of kind, at least to a matter of degree. There are parts of 5e that can get quite complicated but new players don't usually hit that stuff until they've gotten some gametime in under their belts. Whereas with something like 3e, where you need to understand BAB and all that stuff with skills and the different kinds of AC, it's not that each piece is particularly hard to grasp but there's just so much of it, and a lot needs to be grokked early on. It feels like you can have fun with your 5e PC pretty quickly and then you notice the more detailed parts as you go.

[Hael]

I personally don't like 5e very much, and its one of my least favorite editions of the game. (TSR is still the gold standard for my taste). It ultimately leads to combat that is a good deal less deep than previous iterations. It's the DnD for the lowest common denominator.

What I like about it is the streamlining of proficiency scaling, bounded accuracy and advantage/disadvantage. They managed to remove ThAC0 even though its still basically the same thing (just cleaner). Multiclassing isn't as fun as 3.5/pathfinder, but its still pretty fun!

What I don't like is almost everything else. I hate concentration! I hate attunement and the magic item system! I dislike ASIs! I dislike the lack of mechanics and vagueness of the ruleset (vision, stealth, mounts, grappling and the lack of precision for most things etc etc).. I dislike the yo yo death mechanism and how hard it is to die more generally. I don't like the short rest/long rest mechanic. I don't like how casters are basically able to free cast without any worry, and I don't like how easy it is to just walk away from someone (opportunity attacks are heavily nerfed in this edition).

[strangebloke]

I personally don't like 5e very much, and its one of my least favorite editions of the game. (TSR is still the gold standard for my taste). It ultimately leads to combat that is a good deal less deep than previous iterations. It's the DnD for the lowest common denominator.

What I like about it is the streamlining of proficiency scaling, bounded accuracy and advantage/disadvantage. They managed to remove ThAC0 even though its still basically the same thing (just cleaner). Multiclassing isn't as fun as 3.5/pathfinder, but its still pretty fun!

What I don't like is almost everything else. I hate concentration! I hate attunement and the magic item system! I dislike ASIs! I dislike the lack of mechanics and vagueness of the ruleset (vision, stealth, mounts, grappling and the lack of precision for most things etc etc).. I dislike the yo yo death mechanism and how hard it is to die more generally. I don't like the short rest/long rest mechanic. I don't like how casters are basically able to free cast without any worry, and I don't like how easy it is to just walk away from someone (opportunity attacks are heavily nerfed in this edition).

why are you posting in this subforum and this thread specifically?

[Daracaex]

For me, it's the spell system. It was, when 5e first came out, the one thing I loved about it over any previous edition. Preparing spells and being able to cast them flexibly instead of specifying every slot is great. Being able to choose to cast a spell with a higher level spell slot for an increased effect is better. Counterspell being a viable strategy. How sorcerers became the metamagic class. I've since found other things to love about the edition, but I still think this flexible system is the best.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and also bounded accuracy deserves a mention. I was never a fan of "make number go bigger" that character building turned into in previous editions. Limiting the amount of that sort of thing that is needed or possible allows a bit more focus on interesting effects and not just bigger ones.

[Arkhios]

I personally don't like 5e very much, and its one of my least favorite editions of the game. (TSR is still the gold standard for my taste). It ultimately leads to combat that is a good deal less deep than previous iterations. It's the DnD for the lowest common denominator.

What I like about it is the streamlining of proficiency scaling, bounded accuracy and advantage/disadvantage. They managed to remove ThAC0 even though its still basically the same thing (just cleaner). Multiclassing isn't as fun as 3.5/pathfinder, but its still pretty fun!

What I don't like is almost everything else. I hate concentration! I hate attunement and the magic item system! I dislike ASIs! I dislike the lack of mechanics and vagueness of the ruleset (vision, stealth, mounts, grappling and the lack of precision for most things etc etc).. I dislike the yo yo death mechanism and how hard it is to die more generally. I don't like the short rest/long rest mechanic. I don't like how casters are basically able to free cast without any worry, and I don't like how easy it is to just walk away from someone (opportunity attacks are heavily nerfed in this edition).

why are you posting in this subforum and this thread specifically?

I must admit, I'm curious about this as well. Why bother posting here in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier just to ignore us and play and discuss the games you actually do like?

I mean, I don't like 1st and 2nd edition, at all. Yet, I don't go to their respectful subforums to speak bad about them. I just don't see any point in doing so.

[Talwar]

Well, I like that it provides me with a basic framework to build a session or campaign around while leaving me with flexibility in resolving matters at the table.

I like that my players - young people who're keen, younger people who just want to be a wizard, and adults who just want to have fun - have enough choices that they can realize their character concept, but not so many that they get overwhelmed. That applies to gear, spells, classes, races and probably other game elements as well.

I have come to appreciate the...uh...frequency/commonality/whatever it's called that is associated with magical items.

I quite like cantrips.

[Composer99]

I think 5e hits a real sweet spot in terms of its streamlined mechanical core. The exception-based design that layers on mechanics - from class features, to subsystems such as spellcasting - based on that mechanical core lets the game feel straightforward and accessible, because most of the time you only have to engage with a mechanic when you want to. But the way you can layer on mechanics makes it a simple process (IMO anyway) to bolt on additional content - Spheres of Might, the Adventures in Middle Earth Journey, the oodles of homebrew posted on this forum, and on and on.

[Forum Explorer]

Something that I like that hasn't been brought up yet is the lack of a wealth per level. As in, I can run an adventure, give out zero treasure, and the players are still just as strong as they need to be.

Yeah, there is an expectation that they'll get a magic weapon somehow eventually. But there's no 'you need this many pluses, or you won't be able to deal with monsters at your level.'

[Hael]

why are you posting in this subforum and this thread specifically?

Well because I mostly play this version now, more specifically a homebrewed version thereof (with small tweaks) and have for several years. I do however think there is a lot of design potential in this version, and I posted what I thought was good and not good in this thread (as other’s have).

So much of the common homebrew tweaks out there fixes what would be glaring problems with the game, and I think people just assume *that* system is 5e. So there is a nomenclature thing.

When I say I dont like 5e, i’m referring to the pure RAW version.

[Sneak Dog]

The combat balance between classes is darn impressive. The amount of outliers is impressively low.

[KorvinStarmast]

Something that I like that hasn't been brought up yet is the lack of a wealth per level. That is nice.

[Psyren]

why are you posting in this subforum and this thread specifically?


I must admit, I'm curious about this as well. Why bother posting here in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier just to ignore us and play and discuss the games you actually do like?

I mean, I don't like 1st and 2nd edition, at all. Yet, I don't go to their respectful subforums to speak bad about them. I just don't see any point in doing so.

I think it's valid to at least hear what people see as negatives of the system, especially with 5.5 coming which is probably going to codify some of these changes into the "new core." I'd be very surprised for instance if the 5.5 PHB or whatever they call it doesn't use the Neo-Ranger in place of the release one, and I also wouldn't mind tweaks to concentration and short rests.

And yes, I'm as much on the "fix what you don't like at your table" train as anyone, but they clearly wouldn't be announcing 5.5 if they didn't think some more baseline changes were needed.

[strangebloke]

I think it's valid to at least hear what people see as negatives of the system, especially with 5.5 coming which is probably going to codify some of these changes into the "new core." I'd be very surprised for instance if the 5.5 PHB or whatever they call it doesn't use the Neo-Ranger in place of the release one, and I also wouldn't mind tweaks to concentration and short rests.

And yes, I'm as much on the "fix what you don't like at your table" train as anyone, but they clearly wouldn't be announcing 5.5 if they didn't think some more baseline changes were needed.

I'm fine dunking on 5e's stupid decisions, we do that all the time but this is a thread specifically for the purpose of talking about what we do like.

[Lokishade]

Two things:

1. Simplified movement
You can move before, after and even during attacks. Moving doesn't reduce the number of attacks you can make and vice versa. The moment I tasted this, I knew I didn't want anything else ever again.

2. Backgrounds
When you skim the RP elements and powers of the player classes of yore, you classify them as professions and origins and * poof * you get Backgrounds.

Backgrounds are phenomenal for character creation. For example, if you envisioned yourself in the thieve's guild, back in the day, you picked Thief and that was it. But now, you can be the hacker arcane specialist of the guild by picking Wizard with the Criminal background.

Tired of the old Barbarian savage cliché? How about playing a nobleman who dusts off the family heirloom (the mighty ancestral greataxe) whenever a mob mislead by false accusations tries to torch the manor?

With Backgrounds, any class can come from any walk of life.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Honestly, my credit goes to the overall approachability and ease. And I say this as someone who misses the 3.5 PrC complexity personally.

When I got married and had my first kid 12 years back, that was kind of the end of my original gaming group. I just didn't really have the time for a while, then I fell out of contact with that group of friends.

I tried several different times to start games with my wife and our newer friends. But it was always so confusing for a lot of them (Both in 3.X rules and in things like Deadlands Classic). The games would run for a month or so then die.

After watching TFS at the Table I kind of on whim bought the 5e PHB, MM, DMG. I convinced Wife and Friends to run again. They had a blast. They understood what they were doing, they didn't need me to help them through repeated rules. Just some basic help here and there and spell rulings and they were running. Over the past three years this has lead to my wife DMing and proving herself a better DM than I ever was, and another of our friends considering running.

All in all, a system having more approachability and ease to entry was the line between my being able to play or not. As well as opening the door for at least three other players who would have stayed away otherwise.

For a personal favorite rule? The Monk Weapons opening the door to "Here is a stat block but flavor how you want" has been a godsend. We've spread that rule to everything.

[Psyren]

I'm fine dunking on 5e's stupid decisions, we do that all the time but this is a thread specifically for the purpose of talking about what we do like.

Both of you mentioned the subforum as a whole in addition to the upbeat thread though. So there was definitely a "be quiet" vibe to it.



For a personal favorite rule? The Monk Weapons opening the door to "Here is a stat block but flavor how you want" has been a godsend. We've spread that rule to everything.

I do enjoy that. Half of those weapons did nothing special even when they were worth remembering. Going from there to "nunchaku use club stats, just RP that you're spinning them around you" makes a lot of sense.

[Arkhios]

Two things:

1. Simplified movement
You can move before, after and even during attacks. Moving doesn't reduce the number of attacks you can make and vice versa. The moment I tasted this, I knew I didn't want anything else ever again.

2. Backgrounds
When you skim the RP elements and powers of the player classes of yore, you classify them as professions and origins and * poof * you get Backgrounds.

Backgrounds are phenomenal for character creation. For example, if you envisioned yourself in the thieve's guild, back in the day, you picked Thief and that was it. But now, you can be the hacker arcane specialist of the guild by picking Wizard with the Criminal background.

Tired of the old Barbarian savage cliché? How about playing a nobleman who dusts off the family heirloom (the mighty ancestral greataxe) whenever a mob mislead by false accusations tries to torch the manor?

With Backgrounds, any class can come from any walk of life.

Couldn't agree more. Coming from 3.5 to Pathfinder to 4th edition to 5th, I always found the movement rules clunky, until 5th edition.

And backgrounds, I guess 4th edition kind of touched the tip of the iceberg with their version, and paved the way for perfection that is 5th edition backgrounds.

My 2nd iteration of my 1st character in 5e, was (or is, in the deep freeze of a hiatus) a different take of noble savage. Instead of a Noble Barbarian, he is a Paladin of the Ancients with the Uthgardt Tribe Member background (I know I've said this before multiple times. However, that kind of proves the point exactly how awesome 5e background mechanic really is.)


Both of you mentioned the subforum as a whole in addition to the upbeat thread though. So there was definitely a "be quiet" vibe to it.

FWIW, I didn't specifically say a word about the subforum, just 'here'. Which, of course, may be read to implicate either way.

To my defense, I originally meant this thread alone. The topic is literally "What is AWESOME about 5e?" With the emphasis on AWESOME, not in what is bad about it.

[Bosh]

I must admit, I'm curious about this as well. Why bother posting here in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier just to ignore us and play and discuss the games you actually do like?

I mean, I don't like 1st and 2nd edition, at all. Yet, I don't go to their respectful subforums to speak bad about them. I just don't see any point in doing so.

Well 5e is popular enough that a lot of people who don't especially like it end up playing it. I kind of miss the 4e era when people were up for trying most anything, but the number of people 5e has brought into the hobby is quite nice and my son loves it. Hits a good sweet spot for him in terms of complexity.

[Tanarii]

Ease of DMing. IMO no version of D&D has been as easy to run, not even BECMI.

Ease of learning to play. It's more complicated to learn than BECMI, but excluding that edition IMO it's easier than any other edition.

Fast combat again. BECMI and AD&D 2e (before Combat & Tactics) were also fast, but D&D was slow combat for two decades (from C&T) before 5e released.

Easy for players to create characters again. Not as easy as BECMI, but still easy. For most players, overall this leads to a focus on play time rather than worrying about 'builds'. Especially true if you don't use the optional Multiclassing or Feats rules.

[EggKookoo]

With Backgrounds, any class can come from any walk of life.

I was never a fan of "class as career." It leads to the idea that the PCs are aware of their classes as such. There's an old Looney Tunes cartoon about a sheepdog and a wolf, and how they're friends in their personal lives but once the work bell goes off, they become deadly enemies, only to walk home together at the end of the day. It's funny, but I can't get that concept out of my mind when I think of a PC that thinks of being a barbarian as his job.

Backgrounds go a long way toward fixing this.

[Waazraath]

One thing that springs to mind is how many options there are for a specific concept. A "charismatic artist who dabbles in swordfighting and magic" can be done with several subclasses of bard, but also a large number of other classes with the Artist background and the right proficiencies. Just like an outdoor survivor as a ranger or scout rogue, but also with almost any other class with the outlander background and the right skills.

[Tanarii]

I was never a fan of "class as career." It leads to the idea that the PCs are aware of their classes as such. There's an old Looney Tunes cartoon about a sheepdog and a wolf, and how they're friends in their personal lives but once the work bell goes off, they become deadly enemies, only to walk home together at the end of the day. It's funny, but I can't get that concept out of my mind when I think of a PC that thinks of being a barbarian as his job.

Backgrounds go a long way toward fixing this.I'd buy that if you told me you typically made your highest stat match your PCs' backgrounds. Int for a Barbarian or Paladin Sage for example.

[EggKookoo]

I'd buy that if you told me you typically made your highest stat match your PCs' backgrounds. Int for a Barbarian or Paladin Sage for example.

"Yeah, I used to be like that. I could name six different heirs to the Faithless Throne. I knew what you could substitute for boarsbane when making a wound dressing. Heh, yeah, I had forgotten about all that. These days I don't fill up my head with useless garbage. Things are much clearer to me."

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'd buy that if you told me you typically made your highest stat match your PCs' backgrounds. Int for a Barbarian or Paladin Sage for example.

Sure, if they were a really good sage who were forced into a less skilled profession.

What if they were a solid sage who always wanted more? Or someone forced in by a parent or family but never a good student?

Honestly, in the standard spread, only the 10 and 8 represent something a person isn't good at. An Adventurer with the Sage Background who put their 12 in Int is still better at those skills than the average person.

And that's just the simple idea of "I was a sage and the became an X."

Putting 15 in Int for a Vengeance Paladin Sage would be great for a sage who, say, found an ancient tome that released a demon and picked up the sword to stop it.

But what about a Noble who's family forced him to be a Sage to deal with having too many childen, he wanted to be a soldier but soldiers are beneath his noble heritage. But after trying it his family's way for years he eventually gave up and followed his own calling. (There's an 8 Int Sage Fighter)

Maybe the Sage was VERY good at what they did. Enjoyed the work, had a blast, but always felt a call and draw to music. Something in their childhood had made them hide it away and focus on other pursuits but they finally got the courage and gave up safety for a chance at fame. (Int 12, 13, 14 Bard Sage).

Honestly, give me a stat spread and I can spin a backstory that makes it make sense.

As a fun aside, I HAVE had the 15 Int Barb. Ultimate he had single dips in Rogue and Knowledge Cleric, had expertise and proficiency in all the Lore skills and the Ritual Caster feat. He was a "Wizard" for his tribe (In the sense of rituals and lore).

Was fun being the "Clothy wizard" in the back that when people got too close raged and smashed them with an ironbound staff.

[paladinn]

The Single most awesome thing in 5e for me: the spell/slot system. Bye-bye, fire-and-forget!

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The Single most awesome thing in 5e for me: the spell/slot system. Bye-bye, fire-and-forget!

I'm convinced some the loss in popularity for the Sorcerer is purely that the Wizard is finally not a Vancian caster.

[paladinn]

I'm convinced some the loss in popularity for the Sorcerer is purely that the Wizard is finally not a Vancian caster.

I mostly agree. When the sorcerer came out in 3e, with the emphasis on innate magic, I thought elves would be good candidates (being magical by nature), but it never happened.

I like the idea of sorcs being "themed", like the storm sorc, etc., and the divine soul is pretty good giving access to other spell lists. A "primal soul", using the druid spell list, would be an option. The aberrant mind is a pretty good way to introduce psionics. I think more of those sorts of subclasses justify the existence of the class. And a baseline sorc should definitely have access to the entire wizard spell list.

[noob]

The Single most awesome thing in 5e for me: the spell/slot system. Bye-bye, fire-and-forget!

There was before 5e a 3.5 class that had a casting that worked exactly like the 5e cleric/ the 5e bard(the spirit shaman: prepare spells and cast them spontaneously afterwards) and the 5e sorcerer works exactly like the 3.5e one.
The only new 5e casting is the wizard one(prepare spell from a spell book then cast them spontaneously afterwards).
It is not actually new mechanics just variations of older mechanics.
I think that having the choice between vancian and spontaneous casting with prepared spells and fully spontaneous casting and spontaneous list casting is better because this way depending on how much complicated you want to make your life be you can choose from maximal complexity (I prepare every day each slot) to maximal simplicity (I never have to pick any spell at level up or in the morning: there is a list and I cast spells from the list)
Right now 5e removed the roof(vancian casting which is maximal efforts in predicting the future) and the floor(list casting) and I think 5e should add back the floor at least.(list casting was a brilliant idea and the fact it was not used more in 5e is bad because list casting is really great for allowing players to have functional casters without needing to do choices)
I am however happy that the phb base classes does not have vancian casting because base classes should not have the most complicated mechanics.

[EggKookoo]

It is not actually new mechanics just variations of older mechanics.

This is true for a lot of 5e things. I appreciate the flexibility of the spell slot approach. While a 3e sorc could use a higher-level slot to cast a spell, the game didn't have the same upcasting mechanic. Did they add something like that in 3.5?

[Tanarii]

"Yeah, I used to be like that. I could name six different heirs to the Faithless Throne. I knew what you could substitute for boarsbane when making a wound dressing. Heh, yeah, I had forgotten about all that. These days I don't fill up my head with useless garbage. Things are much clearer to me."
That doesn't sound like someone that Sages that just happens to have a Barbarian class. It sounds like someone who was a Sage who now Barbarians actively.

I agree that classes being an in-universe thing isn't for everyone. I agree that Backgrounds do a good job of fleshing out what a character was before they became an adventurer, and maybe even dabble in as a side job. But the class defines the kind of things they focus on being good at now. Especially as you gain some significant levels.

One thing that 5e is decent at is strong archetypes for its classes, but also giving some variety from what they were before they started adventuring. I especially like the way that personality traits are recommended based on background, not class.

[EggKookoo]

That doesn't sound like someone that Sages that just happens to have a Barbarian class. It sounds like someone who was a Sage who now Barbarians actively.

Oh, I was just trying to model a low-Int barb with a sage background. One that's "low-Int" by choice, in the sense that he doesn't put a lot of effort into keeping his intellect in shape (any more).


But the class defines the kind of things they focus on being good at now. Especially as you gain some significant levels.

I probably expressed myself poorly. I do like that classes represent a kind of calling, within the fiction. But I prefer it to be something loosely-defined and subjective for the PC, rather than something that could be clearly defined from an external perspective, if that makes sense.


One thing that 5e is decent at is strong archetypes for its classes, but also giving some variety from what they were before they started adventuring. I especially like the way that personality traits are recommended based on background, not class.

Agreed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I probably expressed myself poorly. I do like that classes represent a kind of calling, within the fiction. But I prefer it to be something loosely-defined and subjective for the PC, rather than something that could be clearly defined from an external perspective, if that makes sense.


I like that classes have some connection to the fiction. A druid gets his power in different ways and from different places than a nature cleric, and that has an effect both in how he interacts with the world and how the world interacts with them. But people in the setting might call either or both of them a "priest" or a "shaman" or "that crazy tree-hugger" and wouldn't necessarily know that one can go all beastly or can cast different spells or that one is the one to talk to about undead vs the other.

There may be orders which to which paladins belong. But not everyone in those is a paladin--it's not an Order of Paladins. It may be a knightly order or a religious one, but paladins are only some of them...and lots of paladins don't belong to any such Order (and may even be enemies of all the Orders). Just like clerics don't necessarily belong to a church and aren't necessarily trained in their (or any) religion--a cleric is just one who is called by a god in a particular way, just like a paladin is one who has made a binding Oath that grants power in exchange for a life of obedience to the tenets of the Oath[1].

Etc.

[1] I have a head canon that the real source of a paladin's power is sacrifice--by binding themselves to obey an oath that isn't natural or trivial, they're sacrificing the freedom to do those things. And one of the oldest laws in all the fantasy-verse is that sacrifice is power. It's the root of blood magic, it's the root of so many tropes and fantasy ideas.

[noob]

This is true for a lot of 5e things. I appreciate the flexibility of the spell slot approach. While a 3e sorc could use a higher-level slot to cast a spell, the game didn't have the same upcasting mechanic. Did they add something like that in 3.5?

There is multiple things that are close to upcasting in 3.5.
1: Psionic powers gives options for improvement when manifested for higher cost(equivalent to higher slot level)
I even think that I would have been probably fine with 5e casting being more similar to psionics.
2: Metamagics like heighten spell(increase dc and spell level)
3: Spells that gains effect with caster level can be considered as being of a similar philosophy despite the lack of cost increase and generally spells of that kind that gets translated to 5e have their cl based mechanic either deleted or transformed in upcasting.(some people are terribly disappointed in the lack of upcasting options for phantom steed that would be needed to replace the progress of the mount with cl)

Cl had the bad thing of making casters get more use of the same amount of spell slots over time.

[dafrca]

[1] I have a head canon that the real source of a paladin's power is sacrifice--by binding themselves to obey an oath that isn't natural or trivial, they're sacrificing the freedom to do those things. And one of the oldest laws in all the fantasy-verse is that sacrifice is power. It's the root of blood magic, it's the root of so many tropes and fantasy ideas.
Oh I like this one. I am going to use this myself. Very cool. :smallsmile:

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I agree that classes being an in-universe thing isn't for everyone. I agree that Backgrounds do a good job of fleshing out what a character was before they became an adventurer, and maybe even dabble in as a side job. But the class defines the kind of things they focus on being good at now. Especially as you gain some significant levels.

That is one thing I ignore from the "official" set up of 5e, though I imagine I'm not unique.

Backgrounds are painted very much as "You were this until you became a Fighter/Bard/What-have-you."

I've never forced that kind of structure. Background makes up your more mundane skills. I see nothing wrong with a Fighter who after a few adventures leading to the finding of some unique antiques, decided they wanted to get up in the world so joined a Merchant Guild as a Merchant, opened an antique shop and realized he felt a rush going out and finding his own unique finds for his strange shop. Guild Merchant is no longer the Background he used to have, it's actually closer to his primary focus, but his Class is where he finds his skills and abilities.

This is already built into some backgrounds in later books too I've noticed. The Investigator from Ravenloft is very much still on the job and it's unlikely that a DragonMarked House Agent is "done with all that" when they became a Wizard. But I know the PHB phrases it in certain ways.


[1] I have a head canon that the real source of a paladin's power is sacrifice--by binding themselves to obey an oath that isn't natural or trivial, they're sacrificing the freedom to do those things. And one of the oldest laws in all the fantasy-verse is that sacrifice is power. It's the root of blood magic, it's the root of so many tropes and fantasy ideas.

Makes sense to me. I've played about four paladins (Weird situation, one of them founded an order and the game I play in we have more than one PC (Not always on screen, just bigger cast and different people on different stories)). They function very close to how Knight Radiants do in Stormlight. Their magic comes from adhering to their oath and breaking the oath, even accidentally, leaches away power.

IE if one has an oath to "Protect those who cannot Protect themselves" It very likely has a rider that is "Protect even those I hate, if it is right." Which means if you turn your back on the "Badguy" in a situation where they're not at fault and not deserving of something bad coming.. Guess what.. Your power is coming at your sacrifice in the form of holding the ideal no matter what.

[Abracadangit]

As someone who began playing in a Pathfinder 1e game recently (which borrowed most of its core from 3e), I'm realizing how much I didn't miss the 3e rules for doing anything remotely interesting in combat other than attacking.

"Ok, how about I grapple this guy."

"Well then he gets an attack of opportunity on you. And you have to make a new check to maintain the grapple on every subsequent turn."

"Yikes. Uh, ok... I'll just shove them, then."

"That'll also give them an attack of opportunity."

"Knock them down!?"

"ALSO AN ATTACK OF OPPORTUNITY"

It's like if you didn't take the right feat for X or Y, you're disincentivized from doing it, almost ever. 5e's just like "It's a check. You succeeded? There - you did the thing!" I don't know how other people go back to the old way after 5e.

[Tanarii]

I've never forced that kind of structure. Background makes up your more mundane skills. I see nothing wrong with a Fighter who after a few adventures leading to the finding of some unique antiques, decided they wanted to get up in the world so joined a Merchant Guild as a Merchant, opened an antique shop and realized he felt a rush going out and finding his own unique finds for his strange shop. Guild Merchant is no longer the Background he used to have, it's actually closer to his primary focus, but his Class is where he finds his skills and abilities.

This is already built into some backgrounds in later books too I've noticed. The Investigator from Ravenloft is very much still on the job and it's unlikely that a DragonMarked House Agent is "done with all that" when they became a Wizard. But I know the PHB phrases it in certain ways.Unless your adventures are about Guild Merchanting, they're still a Fighter that has experience and personality as a Guild Merchant when on the table-time clock. And the bulk of their abilities, not to mention the probable assignment of ability scores by the player, match that.

Yes, there's nothing that states a background must be something purely in the past and not something the character does in their downtime or even (hopefully) something that drives and motivates them into and during their current adventures. Certainly even among the PHB backgrounds that holds true. But again, the specific things they do while on the table time job are usually are primarily constrained by their class abilities and class-supporting ability score array.

Despite that, I've never felt that backgrounds are secondary to class, since they're (supposed to be) the core driver for your character's personality. Background indirectly drives most of the why of in-character decisions, class sets the parameters for most available options for implementing those decisions.

[Arkhios]

It's like if you didn't take the right feat for X or Y, you're disincentivized from doing it, almost ever. 5e's just like "It's a check. You succeeded? There - you did the thing!" I don't know how other people go back to the old way after 5e.

After a while you learn to not give a damn about the attack of opportunity. Just this week, I tried to bull rush a large golem in spite of the risk. I didn't succeed, but I'd just "eaten" one AoO for the team, and the creature had just one, making it easier for the others to maneuver to better positions.

To my defense, I must admit my character has ridiculous amount of hit points and AC is rather high, even though I didn't *try* to be a tank (though it turns out I've become one). And very high Strength, so the bull rush might have succeeded, if I had rolled better.

[KorvinStarmast]

[1] I have a head canon that the real source of a paladin's power is sacrifice--by binding themselves to obey an oath that isn't natural or trivial, they're sacrificing the freedom to do those things. And one of the oldest laws in all the fantasy-verse is that sacrifice is power. It's the root of blood magic, it's the root of so many tropes and fantasy ideas.
Love is sacrifice. (First time that registered with me was a line from a Stallone movie (Cliffhanger). Bad guy talking to one of his minions who was about to die). And then, one day, years later, I 'got' what agape was.
Life's a funny old dog.

[Azuresun]

For me, 5e is the embodiment of "something is complete not when there's nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to remove". The rules feel very sleek and efficient in play, and it's very easy to make a call for an unpredictable situation. I'd say this is definitely the RPG (not just edition of D&D) where book flipping is at an all-time low. There was one campaign I ran where a player turned up at the last minute without a character, and we were able to mock up a gnome bard and give him an idea of what all his stuff did within ten minutes. I cannot imagine doing that in 3e.

I like how easy it is to add stuff. I've experimented with importing Dramatic Tasks from Savage Worlds, (a system where PC's need to make skill checks with skills relevant to a certain crisis and accumulate X successes within Y rolls) and they worked really well.

I like how easy it is to customise monsters. When I wanted a "Siren" recently, I could simply take a Merrow, give it 3/day Disguise Self, and add on the Harpy's alluring song. And that was it. No need to fool around with HD or adding a certain prestige class.

I like that magic items feel cool again, rather than the 3e treadmill of dull-but-required static bonuses. Being freed up to give out the eccentric stuff and seeing how the PC's use it to solve problems feels great.

Backgrounds being uncoupled from classes is nice. I don't need to mess around with multiclassing or feats to have my cleric of the god of strength know Athletics!

Paladin oaths. It's a little thing I really like, that opens up the conceptual space of "warrior serving a higher power" a lot. The way I usually describe the oaths to newbies is that the Oath of Devotion is Superman, the Oath of the Ancients is Wonder Woman, and the Oath of Vengeance is Batman. :smallbiggrin:

Concentration. After spending half an hour layering buffs in Pathfinder, I really appreciate this, and I also like how it means spellcasters are often at their most effective when supporting other characters.

No healbots. Obviously, it's going to be harder if you have nobody with healing magic, but it's still doable, and it's much easier for characters to do it as a sideline.

I like that optimisation isn't required, and that the scope for it is much narrower than before. Game-breakers are quite rare and known, and they're much less outstanding than the "we are now playing different games" 3e age. So long as the character is somewhat sensibly designed (a barbarian with good Strength and Constitution), they'll do all right.

[sethdmichaels]

IMO the biggest strength of 5e is you don't generally need to spend a lot of time looking up obscure rules or consulting tables and can, once you have a decent grasp of the system, can just focus on playing the game.

this, and the fact that it is (or at least can be) somewhat lore-agnostic. There's a range of ways to play, table by table and within campaigns.