D&D 5E In fact, INSERT RULES HERE was a key part of the 3rd edition, and it means 5th edition is still missing full support for this previous edition.

In fact,INSERT RULES HERE was a key part of the 3rd edition, and it means 5th edition is still missing full support for this previous edition.

I keep seeing this over and over in tons of different forms. Posters wanting 5E to give them all the rule support of other editions. There seems to be a feeling that 5E just needs MORE.

This chasing of MORE is fine but i think it's important to realize that it leads to Rules Heavy Games like Pathfinder or indeed 3.5

Now there is nothing wrong with those types of games. I love Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D.

I also love 5E for what it is though and don't want to change it.

I think some D&D fans,even those that like 5E, have a subconscious desire for the comfort of what they had before.

They want 5E to have more and more and more and although praise it for trimming the game down and making it so easy to run secretly believed/wanted it would bloat out to give them the security of (FULL SUPPORT) that the other style games have.

I think this is a issue we need to deal with. Because we can easily turn into our own worst enemy and turn 5E into 6E with 3 players handbooks and splat books and rules upon rules.


* In short, I think it's a good thing that 5E is missing the rules from 3.5 edition and hope it never gains them.

So you hope 5E will never support psionics or bloodlines or infusions or defiler magic or magic item creation or spelljamming or... or...?

While I definitely do not want 5E to add the specific rules from 3.5 there are certain areas (or subsystems) I would gladly see an uniquely 5E-styled take on

GameOgre said:

In fact,INSERT RULES HERE was a key part of the 3rd edition, and it means 5th edition is still missing full support for this previous edition.

I keep seeing this over and over in tons of different forms. Posters wanting 5E to give them all the rule support of other editions.

Click to expand...

Yep. Hardly surprising. 5e is meant to be that wonderful unicorn edition of D&D that is 'for' all fans of all past editions. Sure, that's impossible, but it's still possible for it to become a little more so, for one edition or another, incrementally. So while the agitation for it to do just that in specific instances given fans are most concerned with is, well, agitating, it's also understandable, and not exactly a bad or wrong thing to do.

It's particularly problematic with the modern editions - 3e & 4e - because they were player-focused ('player entitled' or 'empowering' depending upon how you want to spin it). 3e had the whole Cult of RAW thing going, and 4e was decidedly clear/balanced, and both were intricate - all discouraging rampand modding and off-the-cuff rulings 'Dis-empowering' (if we want to spin it that way) DMs.

5e strongly evokes the classic game, and it's rulings-not-rules & DM Empowerment angles are familiar to us fans of the TSR editions, and comfortable (fun!) to get back into the swing of using.

But for those who started in the WotC era or really took to the philosophy of a modern edition, it can be less than satisfying. They want rules that they can more or less count on.

There seems to be a feeling that 5E just needs MORE.

This chasing of MORE is fine but i think it's important to realize that it leads to Rules Heavy Games like Pathfinder or indeed 3.5

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. And, yes, it can. But, as anything beyond the standard game outlined in the PH is oh-so-optional, it needn't actually impact those already happy with just the existing options, at all.

I also love 5E for what it is though and don't want to change it.

Click to expand...

If you love it for the DM-Empowering game that it is, though, you're fine. Don't want it to be changed by rules-heavy additions that others desperately want, don't opt into any of those additions. That's the beauty of being so DM-focused, WotC /can/ provide what other players want, without inflicting it on those who want nothing more.

I think some D&D fans,even those that like 5E, have a subconscious desire for the comfort of what they had before.

Click to expand...

I agree - if we assume that for the rest, the desire is present, but conscious.

GameOgre said:

In fact,INSERT RULES HERE was a key part of the 3rd edition, and it means 5th edition is still missing full support for this previous edition.

I keep seeing this over and over in tons of different forms. Posters wanting 5E to give them all the rule support of other editions. There seems to be a feeling that 5E just needs MORE.

This chasing of MORE is fine but i think it's important to realize that it leads to Rules Heavy Games like Pathfinder or indeed 3.5

Now there is nothing wrong with those types of games. I love Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D.

I also love 5E for what it is though and don't want to change it.

I think some D&D fans,even those that like 5E, have a subconscious desire for the comfort of what they had before.

They want 5E to have more and more and more and although praise it for trimming the game down and making it so easy to run secretly believed/wanted it would bloat out to give them the security of (FULL SUPPORT) that the other style games have.

I think this is a issue we need to deal with. Because we can easily turn into our own worst enemy and turn 5E into 6E with 3 players handbooks and splat books and rules upon rules.


* In short, I think it's a good thing that 5E is missing the rules from 3.5 edition and hope it never gains them.

Click to expand...

I largely agree. 5e pulled things from every edition like they said they would. But that doesn't mean they said 5e will support everything from every edition. Even if you get past how that's impossible, why would you want to? 5e should have it's own identity. It doesn't have THAC0, save or die, XP for treasure, or any number of things from my previous favorite edition, and TBH, I'm glad. It does give me the tools to adjust things to make it more like AD&D without being exactly like AD&D. If I want the AD&D experience, I will play AD&D.

To try to do what you're warning against, you'd have tons of splat and additional books that wouldn't come close to justifying the cost in making them. Maybe you really want that psionic warblade hex class. Maybe 1000 other people do too. But WoTC is not going to spend the time or money on something that only a tiny % of gamers want. That's just a reality. Everyone, and I do mean everyone who is fans of any previous edition needs to understand that 5e is it's own thing, and not to expect it to emulate your favorite past edition. Not without putting in the effort to do so at any rate (which 5e largely allows us to do). That is not the fault of the game, or the designers, or means the game is broken.

It's called compromise. And we all do it since I doubt 5e is perfect right out of the box for everyone.

Theres only a few things I miss from 3E.

1. Fort/Ref/Will. I like 3 saves conceptually, 3Es take on them not so much.
2. Microfeats on occasion
3. Certain monster abilities (SR/MR, spellcasting Dragons)
4. Slower nonmagical healing.
5. Armor rules.

I miss that there are certain characters I can't re-create because their very design (personality & character options) were rooted in weird one-offs that will probably never see official support; my Incarnate (from Magic of Incarnum) and my Archivist (Heroes of Horror). I also had a Factotum who was a lot of fun; their stuff kind of got eaten by the Bard but it's just not the same.

But yeah, I don't see myself ever having any desire to go back to 3.X for any reason.

While I agree with this sentiment, I think there is a big difference between zero rules for something and a bare minimum rule that can be used as a framework or guideline. I find that having that bare minimum rule as a starting point is super helpful.

Here are some examples:

• 3E and 4E had elaborate rules for crafting magic items and pricing them. 5E gives general guidelines for prices, and an extremely simple rule (with a few options) for crafting.
• 3E had an entire book about building strongholds. 5E gives a list of prices for various buildings, and a formula to figure out how long it takes to build them. 4E had nothing.
• 3E and 4E had very specific and scientific rules for line-of-sight and cover. 5E just tells you how large of a modifier is appropriate.
• 3E and 4E had very clear procedural rules for stealth (that still managed to confuse people). 5E tells you the general conditions and which checks to make.
• 3E had a formulas for crafting or practicing a profession. 5E gives a flat amount of gold per day. 4E had nothing.

In each case, I prefer the 5E approach. A basic general-case rule is given, and that makes it easy for me (as DM) to modify that rule in specific scenarios.

(This is just my preference. I enjoyed playing 3E and 4E and I can understand why people would like those game systems better. In particular, the 3E approach of "rules out the wazoo" has always been popular in RPGs and continues to do well, so clearly it is serving a lot of people's needs.)

CapnZapp said:

So you hope 5E will never support... ...magic item creation...

Click to expand...

Important note for any uniformed readers: by "magic item creation" Zapp actually means "magic item creation in a way I don't dislike" since the DMG actually does include support for creating (and even buying and selling) magic items.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have more official rules so that there is something on which you can hang your hat. Having player focused games allowed the books to maintain a consistency across tables, and DMs had to work within that framework.

Essentially, I see 3.5 and 4E as pre-prepared food, just heat and eat, and it always tastes the same. And along comes 5e, a base recipe, which says you can make things from scratch, allowing you to add the ingredients you like. 3.5 and 4e's Olive Garden to 5e's local Italian Restaurant. It's all pasta.

It is simply a different approach which creates culture shock to those who came into the game later.

77IM said:

While I agree with this sentiment, I think there is a big difference between zero rules for something and a bare minimum rule that can be used as a framework or guideline. I find that having that bare minimum rule as a starting point is super helpful.

Here are some examples:

• 3E and 4E had elaborate rules for crafting magic items and pricing them. 5E gives general guidelines for prices, and an extremely simple rule (with a few options) for crafting.
• 3E had an entire book about building strongholds. 5E gives a list of prices for various buildings, and a formula to figure out how long it takes to build them. 4E had nothing.
• 3E and 4E had very specific and scientific rules for line-of-sight and cover. 5E just tells you how large of a modifier is appropriate.
• 3E and 4E had very clear procedural rules for stealth (that still managed to confuse people). 5E tells you the general conditions and which checks to make.
• 3E had a formulas for crafting or practicing a profession. 5E gives a flat amount of gold per day. 4E had nothing.

In each case, I prefer the 5E approach. A basic general-case rule is given, and that makes it easy for me (as DM) to modify that rule in specific scenarios.

(This is just my preference. I enjoyed playing 3E and 4E and I can understand why people would like those game systems better. In particular, the 3E approach of "rules out the wazoo" has always been popular in RPGs and continues to do well, so clearly it is serving a lot of people's needs.)

Click to expand...

I want to make a quick point. Many of the things that 77IM stated was not in 4E actually was, but it was covered in Unearthed Arcana articles, including how to craft object during downtime (achievements) as well as rules on building and buying strongholds. I am running a 4E game in FR and one of my players main focuses is to build their adventure company and expand their stronghold, not to mention crafting things up to wazoo.

I have complaints with both 3E and 4E, but it is not due to a lack of rules available to have your players feel engaged.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk