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

[BryonD]

5e didn't do much different than past editions, I agree. But people loved D&D for 40 years, there's a reason it is still the great roleplaying game in the world; whatever formula Gygax hit on all those years back still works. For what it's worth, WotC did try a radically different approach to D&D with 4th edition, and it created problems. Lots and lots of problems, so they went back to what they knew was safe ground. I find it impressive that they were able to distill elements from all the editions and blend them together. It sounds simple in theory, but in execution, i think it was rather tricky.

I think this goes too far.

3E was often called the "Herofication" of D&D back when it came out. And through the historic prism of post-4E, 3E certainly looks close to the prior editions. But it was a radical departure all its own. Gygax (and team) had some truly brilliant insights. But early D&D was fraught with issues as well and every game I ever played in was different because of the wild concoction of house rules. And there is nothing wrong with house rules. But event through 2E, D&D NEEDED houserules. (And no offense to those few groups that played it straight, I've got no dispute with your as-is love or the complete and honest truth of that. I'm speaking to the broad "people loved" and "the great roleplaying game in the world" comments.)

A lot was learned from D&D. But those things that were learned were being implemented in other games. D&D was still the name brand of RPGs. So clearly that held sway. But fi you loom at those 40 years of love, you can break it into four broad periods.

1) D&D is basically the only game in town
2) D&D is slowly, but increasingly losing ground to other games, at least to the market of options if not to any one game
3) The 3E / D20 / OGL era
4) 4E

Now we are starting in into the 5E era. And it is certainly a huge turn back from 4E and also clearly not a turn back to 3E, but beyond that into the roots of D&D. So there is clearly truth in your point.
But it still builds and learns from a lot of other games that have come since. It is very much a modern game.

 

[BryonD]

I agree that 5e restored many great things from those 40 years. I also think they've stubbornly clung to some modernist approaches that I find less than best for me. But if you compare it to 4e it's a massive improvement. Compared to 3e it's akin to a horizontal move. Many good things vastly improved and others took a turn for the worst.

And just to repeat. I truly mean no remote offense to this sentiment.
There is plenty to love in old school gaming.

 

[Parmandur]

Bought all the books so far, loving the game; based on their stated plans, might just keep buying all of the books.

As a random aside to an above post:

The word "wizard" means "one is in the habitual state of being wise;" see also, drunkard. Wizards having Wisdom saves make total sense. If anything, having Wizards use Wisdom normally would be thematically fitting.

 

[Nebulous]

I agree that 5e restored many great things from those 40 years. I also think they've stubbornly clung to some modernist approaches that I find less than best for me. But if you compare it to 4e it's a massive improvement. Compared to 3e it's akin to a horizontal move. Many good things vastly improved and others took a turn for the worst.

I'm just curious...what do you find was a worse turn for you? I'm wondering if they're modular things that can be removed, or if they're baked in and unchangeable (like levels).

 

[reiella]

I'm not personally enjoying it too much myself. Part of that is from my favored pieces aren't in play yet though. The other part is likely from my group's growing pains on the system (and I will say, I am in the minority in our group with regards to disliking it).

I hope that it does well, but after the DMG I don't think I'm going to be buying any additional 5e products. At least for a couple of years given the release schedule. I want my Psionics, and that's not going to be coming any time soon.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I have just run my three first D&D 5e sessions. Firstly, explaining the rules to old D&D players is really easy. It works just as before, except that you can't 5' step, you have to use the withdraw action. Running the game is a breeze. Most enemies go down in one or two hits at level 1, increasing a little at level 2. The mechanics are simple enough that nobody has time to get bored between turns.

Setting up the characters is pretty easy, with just the right amount of tweaking room. The only reason it took a bit of time was that there are 12 classes with 3+ subclasses each! I really like how the subclasses work, especially the hybrids like the arcane trickster and eldritch knight.

The Starter Set module is just what I want from a D&D module. A relatively simple story and NPCs, but quite many of them, and a sandboxy style to it all. It's also relatively easy to run - as easy as any sandbox adventure can be. The players got into the story really well and liked the freedom they got to prioritize what to do - and how. This last session I basically had to improvise a complete encounter due to a few lines of hints in the module. It felt completely natural and I don't think the players even noticed that they were outside the bounds of the written material. That's what a good module helps you to do as a DM: Improvise. Not by trying to hold your hand the whole time.

The only thing I dislike is that the spell lists aren't available in a digital format. Get the digital tools already WotC! At least give us a PDF for each spellcasting class with all the spells (and space to add domain spells), with a one-line description.

To be a little on topic: two of my players have already bought the PHB, one bought the MM/DMG as well. I bought the PHB/MM/DMG, which is a first since AD&D! The primary reason for buying the books is that the value is so high compared to anything after 2e. I actually see the point of owning the books, not just borrowing them.

5e is a game I feel I can introduce to just about anybody, while the earlier editions, especially 4e was something I just wouldn't introduce new players to. It was just so clunky and un-dnd-ish. (I have run all editions since 2e + be(cmi) 5e is by far my favorite edition.

Btw, I just bought a Surface 3 pro, downloaded GIMP, downloaded the player maps for the module and ran the Redbrand hideout on it. I added a black layer with 85% opacity on top of the map and used the erase tool to reveal the map as they explored it. It worked really well, I just had to learn the shortkeys for getting the image in full screen without tools: (F11 -full screen, ctrl+shift+j scale the image to full screen, tab - hide the toolbars). My players really liked it and they drew the battlemaps for me without prompting and a lot less confusion regarding where they were and so on.

Now, I sincerly hope that WotC starts releasing more sandboxy modules or makes it easier for publishers like enworld to do so. I don't want to run any adventure paths or mega modules ever again. Give me something that covers around three levels, and I am happy.
[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] any chance of some 5e modules from Enworld? Should we petition WotC to give you a license or something?

 

[Agglomérante]

5e: Keoghtom's Ointment for your Edition War wounds.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Is 5E good enough to play? Sure. It's fast to play, has few frustrating (to me) playstyle expectations, and stands up well to modification and house rules. That's really all I NEED from D&D.

Is 5E good enough to replace 2E and 3E at my table? Yeah, if only because it's balanced enough that I don't have to fret (much) about min-maxing.

Is 5E as good as I'd like it to be? Heck no. Mostly it's in the feel I get as I read the core books--less "OMG I want that to happen in my game" and more "good, that won't conflict with my game." Less "oh yeah they went there" and more "yep, that's a rock-solid take on D&D." I agree with the poster who called it bland, except that I think "bland" is too negative a word--"unobtrusive to a fault" summarizes my viewpoint better.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

It's probably the best edition of D&D, or at least it's as good as BECMI, which is no small feat (but 5e has more options, more moving parts and is more sophisticated). It's probably a matter of personal preference, though, but I don't find it very exciting. It's just D&D, you know what I'm saying? I remember how I felt when I discovered the Sorcerers in 3e, or Warlords in 4e, and there's really nothing that triggers the same kind of reaction in 5e.

 

[Mercurius]

There is something very self referential about 5e that makes me agree with JeffB a bit. I find comparing 5e to previous editions hard because 5e has few elements that make me go wow but overall everything works well. It is like comparing your favourite band's greatest hits album versus your favourite album of that band.

I can buy this - an interesting perspective. The only difference, I feel, is that 5E still has its own feel to it. The reason I never loved greatest hits albums - except as a "gateway album" to a band, or as the one album you own of a band that you like but don't love - is that they usually don't have a tight thematic and periodic feel to them, you don't get a sense of, say, the Rolling Stones circa 1977, for instance.

To some degree I think that is true of 5E. It does feel like the "Perennial Edition" of D&D, even the "Commemorative Edition." But it also seems to have its own flavor to it.

3E was often called the "Herofication" of D&D back when it came out. And through the historic prism of post-4E, 3E certainly looks close to the prior editions. But it was a radical departure all its own. Gygax (and team) had some truly brilliant insights. But early D&D was fraught with issues as well and every game I ever played in was different because of the wild concoction of house rules. And there is nothing wrong with house rules. But event through 2E, D&D NEEDED houserules. (And no offense to those few groups that played it straight, I've got no dispute with your as-is love or the complete and honest truth of that. I'm speaking to the broad "people loved" and "the great roleplaying game in the world" comments.)

A thought that came to mind:

In 1E you absolutely needed house rules.
In 2E you kinda needed house rules.
In 3E you didn't need house rules because they provided nearly anything you could imagine.
In 4E you couldn't use house rules, or at least it was difficult to fit them into the tightly woven rules set.
In 5E you don't need need house rules, but they're easy to add in.

This, to me, may be why 5E is so brilliant.