D&D 5E Did The Finished 5th Edition Change Anyone's Mind?

Blue · Mar 25, 2015

I enjoyed the playtest, knowing it was in a non-polished state. However, the later playtest packets took a direction I was less fond of and that had me down on Next. 5e though seems to have what I liked from the playtest, and more-so in many cases.

I am quite happy with the final 5e rules. My biggest complaints right now is the skill system could have used some more conceptional updating (or at least go back to uncoupling skills from stats in general to make more inventive uses commonplace), and I like concentration as a mechanic but I think they went overboard in the number of spells that have it so instantaneous large damage has a big leg up over ongoing effects on a foe of any type (crowd control, ongoing damage, debuff, etc.) This isn't universal, but it often seems the case to use concentration for a buff and then just nuke enemies with instantaneous spells.

But those are both quibbles for a system that plays tighter and isn't a timesink at high levels.

Iosue · Mar 26, 2015

TerraDave said:
The process of the playtest meant that I was always quite optimistic. Clearly more so then many others here. Not the details--there were all kinds of questionable things that they tested--but the process whereby they would really take on board feedback and fix those things.

I can definitely relate to this. I was generally upbeat through the process. However, there is one area that was really a pleasant surprise. I was very pleased with the first couple playtest iterations because they felt very much like B/X -- light, clean, and simple. As the playtest continued, naturally things got more complex. By mid-2013, I no longer felt the game was light, clean, and simple. Especially when backgrounds and skills were no longer officially optional. I assumed I would be able to pare away options for my home game, but figuring they would release the typical PHB, MM, and DMG, I abandoned the idea that the game would have an easy entry.

So the release of the Basic Rules was a huge surprise. Not only a streamlined form of the game that was easy to get into, but it was free! And not just that, but when the DM Basic Rules came out, I was shocked to see multiple monsters to the page -- B/X style statblocks and short descriptions!

Tony Vargas · Mar 26, 2015

Blue said:
I am quite happy with the final 5e rules. My biggest complaints right now is the skill system could have used some more conceptional updating (or at least go back to uncoupling skills from stats in general to make more inventive uses commonplace).

There's some downsides to uncoupling, but it's not like it's some wild, revolutionary idea - storyteller worked that way over 20 years ago, just for one instance.

The downsides are really pretty minor, since 5e already tends towards them, anyway. For instance, a player could be frustrated if he high-CHA, high-Diplomacy character was constantly told to make INT+Diplomacy or WIS or even CON+Diplomacy, or WIS + Insight - and never got to 'shine' the way he expected. Of course, any player could face that kind of frustration, no matter what he envisioned his character being good at by the DM just saying, 'you fail,' every time he attempted something.

No major reason not to run it that way - or even buck for a different proficiency/attribute combo as a player, if you're not obnoxious about it. I'm pretty sure I've run skills 'uncoupled' in 5e, if only because it slipped my mind that they hadn't retained it from the playtest...

... but I'm not forgetful, I"m /empowered/.

TheBlueKnight · Mar 26, 2015

Blue said:
My biggest complaints right now is the skill system could have used some more conceptional updating (or at least go back to uncoupling skills from stats in general to make more inventive uses commonplace)...

On page 59 of the basic rules, there is a variant rule: "Variant: Skills with Different Abilities" that talks about doing skill checks with non-standard abilities where appropriate and gives the example of making a Constitution (Athletics) check applying proficiency bonus if applicable for making a long swim.

Is this an example of uncoupled skills?

GX.Sigma · Mar 26, 2015

Tony Vargas said:
Apart from 3e-style multiclassing, no significant improvement made to the game in the 21st century was retained in any meaningful way

I'm curious -- What are these "improvements" you feel have been lost? In my opinion, the largest improvement since 2e was the standardized d20 system, which is fully retained in 5e.

Psikerlord# · Mar 26, 2015

I started out liking the playtest, but towards the middle gave up on it. I went mental when the leaks of PHB came out, worried that second wind and action surge were crazy overpowered... but once I got my hands on PHB, I was hooked. I understood much better how the classes were balanced, and the simplicity the game embraced. By the time DMG rolled around, with it's "rulings not rules", wandering monsters, random treasure tables, and host of optional rules at the back, it confirmed for me that 5e is my favourite edition ever. I feel like it is a great mix between 2e, 3e and 4e.

My only complaint is they didnt write DMG in more of a 13th Age style - an even more "Make this game your own! We want you to houserule!" attitude, with greater transparency on dev thoughts behind particular rules or options. For the stealth rules for example I would have preferred to see a more blatant "DM discretion" tag, with dev discussion on stealth easy/hard approaches, and what that means for a game and especially rogues.

MortalPlague · Mar 26, 2015

Tony Vargas said:
...While I have to acknowledge that it's a bad game in any objective or practical sense, it is bad in just those right familiar ways that evoke the feel of the game as it was when I first got into the hobby. While that nostalgia can't sustain my interest as a player for more than an hour or two, in a more practical sense, those familiar failings do mean that I have the tools and experience to make the best of a technically bad game from the other side of the screen (and 5e /does/ work better if you get behind a DM screen, so your players aren't always aware of how much of the game you're overruling and fixing on the fly to preserve their play experience).

I have to call foul on this. It may not play to your tastes, but to call it objectively bad is just inaccurate. Look at all the folks who are enjoying 5th Edition; for a game to be objectively bad, it has to fail at delivering fun on a consistent basis. And that's not what we're seeing.

fjw70 · Mar 26, 2015

It did not change my mind since I was waiting for the final game to make a decision on 5e. The playtests were okay but I was having too much fun playing 4e and BX to spend too much time on the play tests. However, I am very happy with 5e as a modern update to BX Carolina and AD&D.

wedgeski · Mar 26, 2015

Tony Vargas said:
So, while I'm disappointed with the technical details of the game, I am still happy to see D&D in print again, and am determined to do my small part in giving new players the best possible experience with it.

A very odd but very interesting post.

Zardnaar · Mar 26, 2015

MortalPlague said:
I have to call foul on this. It may not play to your tastes, but to call it objectively bad is just inaccurate. Look at all the folks who are enjoying 5th Edition; for a game to be objectively bad, it has to fail at delivering fun on a consistent basis. And that's not what we're seeing.

He is one of the old 4vengers from the WoTC boards.