Sell me on 5th edition

[Tanuki Tales]

Since someone just told me that playing Pathfinder over Next is like "going back to an abusive relationship", I'm intrigued to know what the major draw from the game is. I gave the beginner box a shot and was looking in on the discussions and hub bub around when it was being play tested, but after how toxic WoTC was going from 3.5 to 4th and then some game design quibbles I had with 5th edition (like a lack of 1:1 negating of disadvantage against advantage), it just didn't justify laying out the money.

Well, maybe things have changed and improved since how it was during launch, so sell me on 5th edition folks.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Didn't we just have one of these threads? Anyway, the main selling point is "same general structure as 3e, but much much faster and simpler and better balance largely by virtue of dragging everyone downwards and making unmodified skill rolls the main out-of-combat ability." Casters (especially Wizards and Druids) still win on ultimate versatility, mundanes now win on damage. But yeah, it's 3.x-but-simpler.

[Gastronomie]

Pros:
-You don't need to buy billions of supplements to create a competitive character.

-That being said, actually, you don't need to work hard at all to create a competitive character, because all the classes are good. It's actually harder to create an incompetent character in 5e.

-As Grod mentioned, combat is smooth. I hear that in other editions you need to calculate the pluses and minuses every time you make an attack roll, but not in 5e.

Cons:
-Because they meant to make stuff smooth and to the point, and they fear giving out too many supplements, those who like designing killing machines by mashing together billions of source books will find 5e rather lackluster, due to having minimum data.

-Epic levels in 5e are balanced compared to those in other editions. They still stay human, and never become the god-slaying heroes or the actual demigods that appear in 4e. Those who like that feel may find 5e's epic levels to be "too balanced". This isn't really a "Pro" nor a "Con", just that some people might not like 5e for this reason. Others may actually appreciate it.

[Zman]

5e is like 3.P, but streamlined, user friendly, balanced, and easy to pick up and use. It's hard to build a "bad" character, and building a character does not involve combing through thousands of options of which the vast majority are traps while other options break the game. Bounded accuracy is a dream compared to ever scaling numbers, as you level in 5e even low CR enemies remain relevant and there is a sense of accomplishment.

I literally cringe at the thought of ever playing a 3.P game ever agin.

[Imdeadagain]

I came back to D&D after a prolonged break, you can tell how long it was because that new fangled 2E had only just come out when I finished playing....

I enjoy 5E as it feels true to the original spirit of AD&D but with a vastly improved and streamlined ruleset, from what I have read on these forums I would have hated 3&4E, I severely disliked 2E when I first saw it also.

Its a great version, good for beginners and experienced players alike, yes you don't have the amount of options from previous editions but you can roll up a character in 10 minutes or so and get playing!

[Zippdementia]

In addition to literally EVERYTHING that has been said above, 5th edition also brings the focus back to roleplaying by placing less emphasis on fiddly rules and tables and more emphasis on keeping the PACE of your game good. It's a great game to GM especially for newer GMs and very easy to adapt any other system into (meaning we finally have easy access again to the wealth of 1st and 2nd edition dungeons and modules, some of which STILL comprise the best of what DnD has to offer).

[Tanuki Tales]

Well, the posts in this thread and the lurking I did on this forum have pretty much cemented that this game and its community is still exactly what I remember it being at launch.

You all have a nice evening and thanks for your time.

[Morcleon]

I personally dislike two of the core tenets of 5e, these being [Magic is Rare and Special] and [Bounded Accuracy]. Despite these, it's pretty fun to play at higher levels, since the first is usually negated by your higher level of spells/magic items, and the second is somewhat negated by the higher chance of breaking it via either items or abilities. Character creation is also significantly simpler than in 3.P.

From a DM's perspective, it's a lot easier to handle due to the faster and simpler system.

[pwykersotz]

Well, the posts in this thread and the lurking I did on this forum have pretty much cemented that this game and its community is still exactly what I remember it being at launch.

You all have a nice evening and thanks for your time.

Gentlemen, I do believe he didn't like what he found.

[Zman]

I personally dislike two of the core tenets of 5e, these being [Magic is Rare and Special] and [Bounded Accuracy]. Despite these, it's pretty fun to play at higher levels, since the first is usually negated by your higher level of spells/magic items, and the second is somewhat negated by the higher chance of breaking it via either items or abilities. Character creation is also significantly simpler than in 3.P.

From a DM's perspective, it's a lot easier to handle due to the faster and simpler system.

Interestingly enough, those are two of my favorite core tenants and a huge selling point for me, haha!

[CantigThimble]

Just to throw a few more cons in here I dislike how the class balance depends on a relatively specific schedule for adventuring days that involves numerous grindy but otherwise risk-free combats. However, class balance by number of encounters has pretty much always been an issue in D&D so it's really only relevant if you're comparing it to non-D&D systems.

[Gastronomie]

Interestingly enough, those are two of my favorite core tenants and a huge selling point for me, haha!

The disappearance of the Christmas Tree effect is a major selling point of 5e. Characters can only attune to 3 magic items at once (though some items don't require attunement), so even at high levels, it's not like the party wizard has Robe of the Archmagi + Cloak of Displacement + Ioun Stone + Staff of Power + Ring of Invisibility + Ring of Djinni Summoning + Ring of Protection + Ring of Regeneration.

[Morcleon]

The disappearance of the Christmas Tree effect is a major selling point of 5e. Characters can only attune to 3 magic items at once (though some items don't require attunement), so even at high levels, it's not like the party wizard has Robe of the Archmagi + Cloak of Displacement + Ioun Stone + Staff of Power + Ring of Invisibility + Ring of Djinni Summoning + Ring of Protection + Ring of Regeneration.

I've never understood why the Christmas Tree effect was seen as a bad thing beyond the fact that most fantasy artwork doesn't have tons of magic items on the people within. Someone explain?

[pwykersotz]

I've never understood why the Christmas Tree effect was seen as a bad thing beyond the fact that most fantasy artwork doesn't have tons of magic items on the people within. Someone explain?

It's not inherently bad or anything, it's just a style preference. Heavy amounts of magic items tend to trivialize the character underneath them. Also, they're a pain to track, a pain to envision, and it causes intense power escalation beyond normal bounds. Unless it's accounted for, then it's a required part of the leveling treadmill which 5e was seeking to avoid.

That said, all these things have their counterpoint. For every Gandalf with no magic items, there's a Tony Stark who uses nothing but them. Magic items are a more western ideology where the gear makes the man, whereas envisioning power as an extension of yourself is more eastern.

But for me, it's mostly a pain to track and use. Most of the powers get forgotten anyway, and it makes the game boring for me as a player and tedious as a GM.

[raygun goth]

I've never understood why the Christmas Tree effect was seen as a bad thing beyond the fact that most fantasy artwork doesn't have tons of magic items on the people within. Someone explain?

The Christmas Tree Effect isn't just that you get a bunch of magic - it's the perception (and vicious spiral that turned into reality) that you "needed" a bunch of magic. Monster abilities outstripped baseline class features and feats so fast that in order to not get instagibbed by anything with a challenge rating equivalent to your level, you needed to invest in particular fiddly bits.

In 3.PE you needed:

enhancement to armour AC
enhancement to shield AC (floating shields...)
enhancement to hit/dmg
enhancement to stats
natural armour to AC
deflection to AC
enhancement to saves

Moving beyond that you'd want:

speed boosts
elemental resistances
DR (stoneskins)
access to flight
access to haste
access to buff/scry/teleport
access to deathward
access to mindblank (eventually)
access to tomes of stat boosts

Not everyone wants to invest in these fiddly bits. Some people just want to be cool without needing to be the magical equivalent of Iron Man. I am of the school that holds the opinion that if someone wants to be Magic Iron Man, they should be able to, but I also don't think that they should instantly be better than the guy that wants to be The Hulk or Black Widow - and the Christmas Tree Effect made the guy who invested in magic items so much better that to remain competitive, you had to play catch-up. Which is sad, because sometimes I want to be the guy with all the gadgets, and sometimes I'd rather not, and the Christmas Tree Effect basically made that impossible.

Which is a real downer when that's not how you like to have fun. It's like being told you're having badwrongfun except the guy telling you is at your table and immune to everything.

Side note: It's not just the art - the fiction really (typically) doesn't do this, either.

[RickAllison]

It's not inherently bad or anything, it's just a style preference. Heavy amounts of magic items tend to trivialize the character underneath them. Also, they're a pain to track, a pain to envision, and it causes intense power escalation beyond normal bounds. Unless it's accounted for, then it's a required part of the leveling treadmill which 5e was seeking to avoid.

That said, all these things have their counterpoint. For every Gandalf with no magic items, there's a Tony Stark who uses nothing but them. Magic items are a more western ideology where the gear makes the man, whereas envisioning power as an extension of yourself is more eastern.

But for me, it's mostly a pain to track and use. Most of the powers get forgotten anyway, and it makes the game boring for me as a player and tedious as a GM.

Gandalf seems like the guy who would rather load up on Jars of Alchemy and other low-power but high-versatility items anyway. Tony Stark seems more like an Artificer, someone whose magic items are actually part of their class features rather than something others can just pick up.

A better comparison would be someone like Link against Goku. So much of Link's capabilities are defined by what items he has, while Goku and company almost never use anything close to magic items. Heck, the Z-Sword looked like it was heading that direction, but its main use was to be destroyed so an old guy could come out and unlock more powers within the Z-Fighters.

[pwykersotz]

Gandalf seems like the guy who would rather load up on Jars of Alchemy and other low-power but high-versatility items anyway. Tony Stark seems more like an Artificer, someone whose magic items are actually part of their class features rather than something others can just pick up.

A better comparison would be someone like Link against Goku. So much of Link's capabilities are defined by what items he has, while Goku and company almost never use anything close to magic items. Heck, the Z-Sword looked like it was heading that direction, but its main use was to be destroyed so an old guy could come out and unlock more powers within the Z-Fighters.

I like your example. I agree that my example isn't exactly bulletproof.

[DeAnno]

For what it's worth, sometimes I feel like 5e is the abusive relationship out of the two.

[Mrglee]

Well, the posts in this thread and the lurking I did on this forum have pretty much cemented that this game and its community is still exactly what I remember it being at launch.

You all have a nice evening and thanks for your time.

I mean, there has been a single sourcebook with crunch content, and even that was like, 20 pages. Game can't really have changed at all. If you are actually interested in 5e, it is better to just play a session with the free basic rules and see if it is something you like.

[Regitnui]

For what it's worth, sometimes I feel like 5e is the abusive relationship out of the two.

Why? I find it much less bewildering than 3.5Pf's metric ton (seriously, most of a page column for goblins and kobolds) of stats. I also feel 5e has much more pick-up-and-play value than any edition before it.

[Zalabim]

Since someone just told me that playing Pathfinder over Next is like "going back to an abusive relationship", I'm intrigued to know what the major draw from the game is. I gave the beginner box a shot and was looking in on the discussions and hub bub around when it was being play tested, but after how toxic WoTC was going from 3.5 to 4th and then some game design quibbles I had with 5th edition (like a lack of 1:1 negating of disadvantage against advantage), it just didn't justify laying out the money.

Well, maybe things have changed and improved since how it was during launch, so sell me on 5th edition folks.

I know you gave up after about an hour, but WotC has been much less toxic with this edition transition. Not totally non-toxic, but less toxic. The bolded statement may be quite true for you though that doesn't mean you can't play 5E if you have a group available and can borrow a PHB. It's very easy to pick up and play. If it's just design quibbles, then it's usually something that could be run your preferred way with just a little loss of speed or simplicity to explain the original rule (like canceling disadvantage and advantage.)

[DeAnno]

Why? I find it much less bewildering than 3.5Pf's metric ton (seriously, most of a page column for goblins and kobolds) of stats. I also feel 5e has much more pick-up-and-play value than any edition before it.

I spend time on a forum about D&D. I'm not afraid of Tables and Timesinks.

5e is like a neglectful significant other. You wait months between significant new content, and when you get any it's covered in disclaimers. Problematic rules elements mostly have to be answered in 140 characters or less, and the half-hearted errata refuses to do anything much other than nerf things that needed no nerf. And when you try to put in work and get interesting things out of the relationship in spite of this, 5e starts off on its rant about "rulings not rules" and throws your art project in the garbage after smashing it against the wall (and you better believe you're sleeping on the couch for a week too.)

[Zalabim]

I spend time on a forum about D&D. I'm not afraid of Tables and Timesinks.

5e is like a neglectful significant other. You wait months between significant new content, and when you get any it's covered in disclaimers. Problematic rules elements mostly have to be answered in 140 characters or less, and the half-hearted errata refuses to do anything much other than nerf things that needed no nerf. And when you try to put in work and get interesting things out of the relationship in spite of this, 5e starts off on its rant about "rulings not rules" and throws your art project in the garbage after smashing it against the wall (and you better believe you're sleeping on the couch for a week too.)

I don't view the point of an edition to be getting new content. I see the purpose as being something to play every week, or more often, as scheduled. Pathfinder requires me to put in work day after day to show how much I care, then frequently has a headache, but 5E always lets me play even if I just show up with 10 minutes to get ready. 5E lets me do what I want and still performs when the time comes, while Pathfinder is always stringing me along asking for a little more of my time while deflecting many of my attempts to enjoy the game. What can I say? For this, I prefer the cheap date.

I can see this thread going places. Good places? Well, places.

[2D8HP]

Well the O.P. is long gone back to Pathfinderland, but for whatever it's worth, what some regard as a CON (lack of new rules content), I regard as a PRO. While I liked the "Swashbuckler" from SCAG, I'm glad that most of the new content has been in the form of "Adventures", rather than player"Options", but I also subscribed to "Dungeon" magazine but not to "The Dragon", back during 3e.
I have a hard enough time trying to remember the rules that already exist, and I have little wish for more.
But Adventures to experience?
Please keep them coming!

[JellyPooga]

What can I say? For this, I prefer the cheap date.

Pathfinder is definitely a high-maintainence headache. She can cook up a wonderful 4-course evening meal if you cater to her every whim, but it practically requires a staff of people working 24/7 to keep on top of all those little details and don't push her limits, oh no, you don't want to do that. You wouldn't like it when that happens.

5ed might just order take-out, but I enjoy the simplicity of chowing down on pizza when I'm playing, without having to wonder which fork I'm supposed to be using and her casual outlook doesn't make you feel guilty about making a few changes around the house. She even encourages it. Heck, she even actually appreciates the little gifts you bring, unlike Pathfinder, which just uses those gifts to find new ways to give you a migrain.

[Tanuki Tales]

Well, yeah, a girlfriend like that is always convenient when the most she expects from you is to metaphorically work at a McDonald's for the rest of your career.

[Ivogel]

Combat plays fast, which us great if you have inexperienced or indescisive people at your table, or you get bored easy with long combat

[JellyPooga]

Well, yeah, a girlfriend like that is always convenient when the most she expects from you is to metaphorically work at a McDonald's for the rest of your career.

Pathfinder demands that you get the best job possible, regardless of how stressful it is. When you get home and relax after a hard days work, she pulls out another sourcebook and shows you what you could be doing better with just a bit more effort. Then she shows you the receipt and hands you back your credit card.

5ed encourages you to indulge your creative side. She wants you to put effort in, but not into just crunching the numbers to afford that new car, but into painting a mural in the living room or finishing the details on that chair project you started last year. She doesn't care about having all the "nice things", as long as you're happy.

[Tanuki Tales]

Well, it's always good to find someone who's supportive of painting by the numbers.

I don't see this positively going elsewhere, so I'll go back to "Pathfinderland" now and leave you all to "Putt Putt plays Mazes and Monsters".

[Seppo87]

The main reason to switch would be if for some reason you did NOT like Pathfinder.

Pathfinder offers an official variant rule called "automatic bonus progression" to avoid the "chistmas tree syndrome" if you don't like that. According to the rule, you can reduce the WBL down to 1/4 by granting the automatic bonuses one level earlier and the game will still work as intended.
A popular fix for "feat taxes" is this unofficial one: http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/

The casters WILL make most skills obsolete, especially a well prepared wizard. It's highly recommended that you implement unchained skill unlocks in the game, to give rogues or skillmonkeys in general an edge.

Other than that, the playstyle is different in that

-Pathfinder is definitely slower if you're not sure about the rules (and it takes years to learn and remember all of them, if it's even possible)
-Really there are rules for everything and sometimes you can't attempt things unless you have a specific feat, which is difficult to defend imho (see feats like "call truce" did it really need to be a feat?)
-More tactical, which means theater of the mind is not encouraged
-Numbers grow much higher, characters are meant to become untouchable demigods at high level
-Character customization is more detailed, but less balanced - it requires extra effort to make sure everyone has a place in the party (experienced players can do this on their own, the burden is on them - however, you will have to explain to the new monk guy that no, Monkey style is useless, don't gimp yourself unless you want to suffer on purpose)