D&D 5E With the Holy Trinity out, let's take stock of 5E

[SilverfireSage]

Good for you.

Never said I didn't like 5e or I like difficult systems. But if it makes you feel better, then assume away.

I was agreeing with you in the first part. There isn't really anything fresh in 5e, except that it's really polished and that's what I appreciate the most. I never said anything about you not liking the game or even insinuating that. So uh... Yeah, color me confused.

 

[JeffB]

No worries. The way your post read to me was different than your intention, regarding 5e vs "difficult" systems.

 

[BryonD]

I am very happy with it.

It needs some gaps closed, but that will come with time.

My only uncertainty is if this edition really has legs. I can see the downside of bounded accuracy being that the game starts to get a "been-there-done-that" feel in a year or two. But that is far from a forgone conclusion. It is just the one big question mark for me.

But for now it is a great game. I'll certainly get my moneys worth many time over in the worst case. And the foundation for another 15 years of gaming may be here in the best case.

win or awesome overwhelming win. Good alternatives.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I'd give it a B or B+ grade overall, which makes it the best edition of D&D for me. I have a love/hate relationship with D&D. I find the rules pretty unsatisfactory across the board, even if I like the play. I think 5E is a very good upgrade without any of the massive flaws that characterize each and every previous edition.

Unfortunately, 5E is loaded down with tons and tons of minor flaws, errors or omissions to be a truly remarkable work of game design: such as the poorly-written hiding rules, questionable spell effects (contagion), bland sack-of-hp monsters, and so on.

I really wish they included numerous sidebars (or a separate designers' notes document) that explained and explored their design decisions for various mechanics and elements of the game so that the individual DM can clearly understand what their intentions were to make adjudication and house ruling easier. Transparency in rules is a great thing.

Overall, I find 5E a bit underwhelming and it doesn't do enough to convince me to buy all the books and start running it. I'd play in a campaign happily enough, though. I also think the game might age nicely through the living ruleset upgrades and end up being far more playable in 2-3 years than it is now.

 

[Uchawi]

5E leaves a lot of room for improvement in reference to having a flexible chassis where each class has a method to change out ability similar to spells, and removing a lot of unclear rules like hiding or having a robust action economy. But in reference to other editions I would place it ahead of 1E and 2E, and somewhere between 3E and 4E. The best version of D&D is a moving target that will be never be obtained for the majority, but 5E is a little too retro for my tastes.

 

[Gothmog]

5e is the edition to rule them all for me. I've played OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, and 4e, and I think 5e has taken the best aspects of all of them and combined them into a single, polished and cohesive whole. Up until now 1e was my favorite, and we had a lot of fun with 2e. 3e and 3.5 drove me away from D&D for several years, and while 4e had some amazing developments and changes, it still felt a little flat.

5e feels and plays like 1e/2e, with the math fixed, and some of the best developments 4e had included in this system, although subtly. I do like the slow release schedule, and while the adventure path idea doesn't really appeal to me, I can see it will provide themes and cohesive development for the game. I REALLY wish WotC would publish some short, stand-alone adventures over a variety of levels, like the 32-page AD&D adventures. I'm also really interested to see how WotC handles world/setting books, and hopefully they support each world with 2-3 books a year. Finally, I'd love to see a yearly Monster Manual!

Everyone I have shown 5e to has loved it, whether they were old-school 1e/2e players, 3e/Pathfinder folks, or 4e fans. Although it took 2 years, WotC nailed the essence of D&D with 5e!

 

[Mercurius]

I don't think so. There will never be the one true edition, in my opinion. But we have a really solid framework, and 6E and beyond should definitely look at polishing 5E instead of trying to change the game again. I believe this is an invaluable lesson from 4E that WotC people should take seriously: D&D is not your indie RPG, don't try to tell people how it should be played.

Yes, true. While hindsight is 20-20, in a way 5e is the game that 3e "should" have been - with 3e and 4e being optional sub-systems that different groups could play. In other words, 5e is a polished, stream-lined, and modernized classic D&D game, yet it doesn't require one to go the route of uber-customization and granularity (3e) or tactical focus (4e).

So in a way, WotC got the cart (3e/4e) before the horse (5e). I hope that, going forward, they realize what a gem they have in the 5e game and make only minor adjustments to the core game, while use it as a base for some more extreme variants.

It seems that they're doing pretty well for their past standards, but as Mearls himself stated, there's a trend of every new edition selling more books than the previous one, and we have no idea of what WotC would categorize as financial success.

That said, I hope that they keep their promise of avoiding the splat bloat and try to create a game line focused on good adventures, including standalone modules that have no storyline or that relate to the storyline only if the DM want to. And settings. I know it's probably my impossible dream, but I'd love to see support for old and new great campaign settings.

Yes, agreed again. I dream of a ton of setting material, new and old, but don't think it likely. Who knows, though.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm quite happy with 5E. It's the best edition of D&D yet... and I've played most of them. I've been a player in AD&D 1E, AD&D2E, and BX (Moldvay/Cook), and 4E; I've run 0E, AD&D 1E & 2E, BX, BECMI (Mentzer), Cyclopedia (Alston), Big Black Box Basic (Denning; intended to lead to Cyclopedia), 3.0, 3.5, and 5E. I've not run Holmes Blue Basic, nor 4e, but have read them both.

5E combines the unified mechanics of 3E with the BX & AD&D 1E DM-driven approach, throws in the few things I liked from 4e (cantrips as at will, short rests), and the patch it as you want mode of 0E as played. It tries for the clarity of writing of Holmes or Moldvay.

Like AD&D 1, the DMG is information dense. Unlike AD&D 1, it's not also buried in walls of gygaxian verbiage-spew.

I like the art in the DMG the best of the three, but in general, I like the art in 5E just a little less than AD&D 2E - which I feel has the very best D&D art, ever. The thing is, the 5E art is almost as good, and better placed into the layout, making it more effective. (Except for the Monk and halfling illos in the PHB, which just rankle me; the monk for the multi-light, multi-wind issue; the halfling for simply being ugly.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Unfortunately, 5E is loaded down with tons and tons of minor flaws, errors or omissions to be a truly remarkable work of game design: such as the poorly-written hiding rules, questionable spell effects (contagion), bland sack-of-hp monsters, and so on.

I don´t think monsters are only sacks of hp, but some of them are... and its ok that way. But I´d like to have offensive CR and defensive CR stated explicitely in the next monster manual.
It would be a lot more convenient, if you knew better, which monsters are really able to dish out, and which are tanks. I don´t want 4e categorization of roles, but the DMG talsk about those two values, so I wish to see them.

Hiding rules are ok, contagion is badly worded yes, but since you can nearly name every flawed spell and rule in a short article, it means that the overall game is written very well. I also do hope next year´s update will correct some errors and clear up some rules.

After having seen the video review of the DMG on youtube, I can say, that 5e is a very very good game.

 

[fuindordm]

Riffing off of Mercurius, I feel like 5e is the edition that 4e should have been. When I first heard about 4e I really thought they were going to fix the two main problems I saw with 3e: out-of-hand math at high levels and overly rigid classes (there was never a good standard for modifying or swapping class abilities, so people relied on feats and multiclassing). Instead I got the board game version of D&D. I'm not complaining: 4E is a fun game and the lateral design move generated a lot of innovative ideas that enriched 5E.

So anyway, even though I don't have the DMG yet I'm already very satisfied with the new edition and it is closer than any other version to my personal preferences. If I were running AD&D I would add tons of options for people to customize their characters; if I were running 3E I would try to find ways to reduce the complexity of the game and limit character power (or stop at 10th level). 5E seems to hit the sweet spot between customizability and simplicity.