D&D 5E Sell me on 5th…

[I'm A Banana]

I’ve been playing since ‘77, and I’ve gotten to try most of the D&D stereotypes across the various editions. My fave so far has been 3.X, because of the flexibility.

As 3.5Ed ran its course, I started playing odder and odder characters, built using unusual classes & races. I haven’t gotten to play everything I wanted in that edition, and still design PCs with that ruleset. As time passed the more exotic they got.

I didn’t like 4Ed as much, but- again- had more PC concepts on paper than I ever got to play. I really liked that version of the Warlock, and some of the other options appealed to me on their own merits, inspiring different character concepts from 3.X.

But what I saw from the 5Ed playtest reports kinda left me cold. And many of the subsequent threads here over the years haven’t much moved me. However, a close friend is thinking about getting into 5Ed, and I’m wondering if I’m not giving the system a fair shake.

So, I’m looking for an overview of the races & classes available for PCs, to see if any of my unplayed characters would be supported by the latest edition, or if there are new esoteric options that might inspire me to create new heroes.

Wat’cha got?

I'm also a fan of how diverse 3e characters could get.

5e is, I'd say, significantly less so, but in some useful ways. Folks have talked about how Large characters are limited, for instance, which is a good example of 5e's ethos here. There are ways for characters to become Large in 5e. It is something too big for a "race" in 5e, though (races tend to be much smaller and less impactful here, with perhaps the most impactful thing being if you can fly or not), and they have Pretty Good Reasons for that.

Some characters I've played and seen played in 5e:

• A 4' tall robot works security. They're an Autognome Fighter (battlemaster) who focuses on grappling and knocking prone.
• A weird kid who liked snakes and harvested weird and poisonous creatures to do medicine. They're a Human Artificer (alchemist) who focused on poison damage and healing.
• A turtle monk who studied under a master who was turned into a rat. They're a Tortle Monk (Way of Shadow).
• An Indiana Jones expy. They're a Kalashtar Monk.
• A character who is basically a 19th-Century German Doctor. They're a human cleric.
• A man who plays a cursed fiddle. They're a human warlock.
• A sentient dough ball that worked as a ship's cook. They're a plasmid druid (circle of spores)/monk.

So it's not like things can't get a little wahoo, but it's not quite 3e levels of wahoo.

The meatiest area of diversity is probably in the subclasses. A 5e race is a pretty light touch, and 5e's classes are broad buckets, but there's a significant difference in the vibes of, say, a Fiend-pact warlock and a Fey-pact warlock, even if they are both just human warlocks.

Mechanics are not a story, they are just tools.

IMXP, this is entirely backwards. Game mechanics in D&D are how you tell your story, just as words in literature are how you tell your story. They are the medium in which the story occurs. They're diagetic. That's part of the appeal of playing D&D.

Like, an attack roll is part of the story of how strong and/or skilled this character is, how vulnerable or how protected their antagonist is, what each is willing to do for the character bits they believe in, and how luck and chance play into what happens. It's not just a tool to adjudicate gameplay, it's part of what's happening in the fiction for the characters.

 

[Parmandur]

IMXP, this is entirely backwards. Game mechanics in D&D are how you tell your story, just as words in literature are how you tell your story. They are the medium in which the story occurs. They're diagetic. That's part of the appeal of playing D&D.

Like, an attack roll is part of the story of how strong and/or skilled this character is, how vulnerable or how protected their antagonist is, what each is willing to do for the character bits they believe in, and how luck and chance play into what happens. It's not just a tool to adjudicate gameplay, it's part of what's happening in the fiction for the characters.

I think you aren't quite responding to what I was saying, since, the first part of your post illustrates my point: you don't need special rules to seperate your sentient dough plasmid from a plasmid made of more standard amoeba goop. You can reskin easily, because the mechanics serve the story rather than the other way around.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What edition do you prefer? Sell me on that!

I’m a 3.XEd guy. It’s not even close.

It isn’t perfect, but the flexibility, skill system, etc. resonate with me. This is doubtlessly in no small part because of how it echoes HERO (my favorite RPG system).

I rarely encountered the problems most people complained about with it. My takeaway on that was that it was less a problem with the system and more to do with people being willing to abuse it..and being allowed to.*

MY biggest problem with 3.X was one present in ALL editions of D&D to some extent as a necessary consequence of its version of a class & level system of PC advancement. There was no way to design certain PC concepts as fully fleshed out but less powerful from the lowest levels.

For example, the most recent 3.5Ed PC I created was a 2-headed Hengeyokai Fighter with the cryo template and fey heritage powers. So, 2-weapon fighting, cold resistance, icy breath weapon, minor shape-shifting and some fey spell-like abilities. That’s not going to be a 1st level character in 3.5Ed, nor in any edition of D&D in which you can make that PC.

In HERO, OTOH, I could design that same PC to work with 75% plus of all that from jump, merely becoming more powerful & proficient with those abilities over time.


* and every RPG system I know of has aspects that are abusable.

 

[Cergorach]

I'm not going to sell you on 5E, looking at your preferences, I think you would be less happy with the amount of options IF you stick to the official, physical books (compared to 3E/3.5E). Back in the day of 3(.5)E we had official WotC D&D stuff, we had D20 stuff, we had OGL stuff and we had fan stuff. A LOT of folks stuck with only the official WotC D&D stuff. Now we have WotC D&D stuff, we have licensed D&D stuff, we have OGL/CC stuff and we have fan stuff. If you, your DM and your fellow players are fine with using stuff from licensed D&D stuff, then you might get equal of better potential flexibility (options) of 3E/3.5E. Most even offer Print on Demand options for your physical book needs. Personally I prefer pdf these days because my bookcases are overflowing and I prefer to reserve physical books for something truly special, something most modern D&D books aren't (for me)...

Then 3E/3.5E vs 5E, 5E is more streamlined, but to be honest I find it maybe too 'streamlined' for my tastes and I find it less (mechanically) 'flexible' from a DM perspective. I've found (from experience as a DM) that running a high level game 3E/3.5E game, with highly intelligent and creative players, with access to all the official D&D books, is a very brainbreaking excercise. Not only does creating challanging encounters take a huge amount of time, they also take a huge amount of mental bandwidth to run (as the DM). These days there are way better digital tools available to handle a LOT of that, so the issue might not be an issue at all. 5E just seems simpler to run, which might be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on your perspective (and/or mood).

Now, the big thing: Your friend might run a 5E game sometime in the future. Do we really need to sell you on 5E? You'll want to play in that game because your friend is running it, regardless of system. Even if you might dislike certain aspects of the system run, you'll swallow those dislikes, because it's just fun and nostalgic to play in a game with that friend. Our 35+ year old D&D group has been playing 5E becasue it's D&D, we've played that on and off for 35+ years. Is it perfect? No. Is it functional? Yes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm also a fan of how diverse 3e characters could get.

5e is, I'd say, significantly less so, but in some useful ways.

One thing to point out here is just how sparse the 5e material is even after ten years. There are twelve classes and, I think 44 subclasses in the PHB. And I think 42 feats (and people just take the ASI option anyway because it's too strong while being boring).

There are precisely two major player facing splatbooks (Tasha's and Xanathar's), each of which is about half DM content so 90 odd pages of player content in each. Between them they have one new class (Artificer - which is also in the Eberron setting) and about 65 subclasses (including the four Artificer subclasses) and about 30 feats.

All other sourcebooks combined have zero classes and about a dozen subclasses. There are about ten non-setting specific feats (mostly in the Giants or Dragons book) and about 20 setting specific feats (mostly the more recent Dragonlance and Strixhaven books.

By contrast Complete Warrior (published the same year as the 3.5 PHB) has three new classes, 35 prestige classes, and more than 50 feats. So comparable to Tasha's and Xanathar's combined. And the Eberron Campaign Setting had one class (Artificer), eight prestige classes, and about 75 feats. So comparable to all non-Tasha's/Xanathar's combined in terms of player options

Folks have talked about how Large characters are limited, for instance, which is a good example of 5e's ethos here.

The reason for this of course is that 5e doesn't want anyone to lose in character generation - and any casual adventure with a small passage where normal people have to squeeze will almost lock out large characters so they only ever use workrounds.

IMXP, this is entirely backwards. Game mechanics in D&D are how you tell your story, just as words in literature are how you tell your story. They are the medium in which the story occurs. They're diagetic. That's part of the appeal of playing D&D.

Not in mine. Especially hit points. They're useful approximations and a user interface. I do not play the way Order of the Stick slightly parodies.

Like, an attack roll is part of the story of how strong and/or skilled this character is, how vulnerable or how protected their antagonist is, what each is willing to do for the character bits they believe in, and how luck and chance play into what happens. It's not just a tool to adjudicate gameplay, it's part of what's happening in the fiction for the characters.

It's an approximation. The mechanics aren't diagetic; there's no roll of the dice. They're notes, shorthand, aids to visualisation, and more.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I’m a 3.XEd guy. It’s not even close.

It isn’t perfect, but the flexibility, skill system, etc. resonate with me. This is doubtlessly in no small part because of how it echoes HERO (my favorite RPG system).

I rarely encountered the problems most people complained about with it. My takeaway on that was that it was less a problem with the system and more to do with people being willing to abuse it..and being allowed to.*

MY biggest problem with 3.X was one present in ALL editions of D&D to some extent as a necessary consequence of its version of a class & level system of PC advancement. There was no way to design certain PC concepts as fully fleshed out but less powerful from the lowest levels.

For example, the most recent 3.5Ed PC I created was a 2-headed Hengeyokai Fighter with the cryo template and fey heritage powers. So, 2-weapon fighting, cold resistance, icy breath weapon, minor shape-shifting and some fey spell-like abilities. That’s not going to be a 1st level character in 3.5Ed, nor in any edition of D&D in which you can make that PC.

In HERO, OTOH, I could design that same PC to work with 75% plus of all that from jump, merely becoming more powerful & proficient with those abilities over time.


* and every RPG system I know of has aspects that are abusable.

My friend is gearing up to run a HERO game this spring. Bliss.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

MY biggest problem with 3.X was one present in ALL editions of D&D to some extent as a necessary consequence of its version of a class & level system of PC advancement. There was no way to design certain PC concepts as fully fleshed out but less powerful from the lowest levels.

You won't get this in 5e either

It isn’t perfect, but the flexibility, skill system, etc. resonate with me.

5e is not very flexible, nor is it very transparent. IE there is no "template" for creating a new class - people with 3rd party books are just winging it

Skill system - hah! To call 5e's skill-related stuff a "system" is giving it too much credit, imho. I mean yes the skills have rules around them, but they are pretty simplistic, and there are only about 15 (16?) skills - and no new ones have been added since 2014

Why not try it? I mean, genuinely curious, why haven't you tried a 3-5 session game of it yet? Currently by far easiest system to find a game (a good game may be harder to find or course)

 

[Parmandur]

Skill system - hah! To call 5e's skill-related stuff a "system" is giving it too much credit, imho. I mean yes the skills have rules around them, but they are pretty simplistic, and there are only about 15 (16?) skills - and no new ones have been added since 2014

18. Why would they need to add new Skills...? If they did something like a Modern Settokg, maybe a couple more buit even then Tool Proficiencies might suffice to cover new use cases.

If anything, they could probably just cut the number down (they won't, but they could).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why not try it? I mean, genuinely curious, why haven't you tried a 3-5 session game of it yet? Currently by far easiest system to find a game (a good game may be harder to find or course)

Because none of my circle of gamers is running 5th, AFAIK.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Because none of my circle of gamers is running 5th, AFAIK.

Surprising but clearly not out of the realm of possibility

Heck I'd offer to run a couple remote sessions for you

btw, ENW Publishings A5e may be more your style - have you checked that out yet?