What 5e got wrong

[BryonD]

The highest praise I've heard from 3.5/PF fans for 5e is "nothing really bad about it." I haven't seen or heard a lot of defections - the EN headline we saw a while back about 5e widening it's lead on PF was about a 1% widening of that gap, pretty minor, really. Most 5e players at our FLGS have been playing since Encounters or are are returning fans having last played 2e (a heartening number of them, really - I see faces every week that I only used to see 1/yr at conventions).

But, as positive as I like to see many of the things about 5e, I can't buy that it's being hailed as bestestevar the way you imply, outside of the usual uncritical WotC apologists squeeing over the current edition, of course. It's successfully evoke the feel of the classic game and is bringing long-lost fans back into the fold. That's a great accomplishment, but it can all too easily be oversold.

The SRD and DMsGuild have got to help with that, going forward.

For a very long time I've said that 3E was quite capable of supporting the "4e-style" of play..... UNTIL 4E came along and was custom made for that style.
A lot of 4E fans were quite content with 3E but would never ever go back once they had the chance to play 4E. (The fact that there were also people who hated 3E all along and then loved 4E is in no way in conflict with that statement)

3E didn't do 4E nearly well enough to compete with 4E to a 4E fan.

5E doesn't do PF nearly as well as PF does PF.

All through the 5E playtest I was playing PF and loving it. I still love it.
5E doesn't do PF for me. But I also love what 5E does for me. (It is highly important to note that being flexible to customization is central to this. 5E RAW has serious problems. But the fact that it is designed that way on purpose so that the hyper simple bits are waiting to be upgraded to suite a given style is a huge plus)

Before I played 3E, I played GURPS mostly. I love GURPS. 3E sure as hell doesn't do GURPS.
But I didn't mind because I'd done GURPS and could still do GURPS, but now I was doing a NEW fun thing.

Same thing with 5E. I don't love PF less. As a core game I probably love PF more than 5E. But having played the 3E core system for 15+ years, I'm finding 5E fresh and renewed fun.

So I, as PF fan, am saying that 5E rocks.
I'm also saying that it is very easy to see why a lot of people would still prefer PF.

I'm ok with you calling me internet noise. May I have your endorsement to use that same standard for 4E? Because if you stand by that standard then 4E just because the most hated game in the history of mankind...........

 

[Staffan]

The highest praise I've heard from 3.5/PF fans for 5e is "nothing really bad about it." I haven't seen or heard a lot of defections - the EN headline we saw a while back about 5e widening it's lead on PF was about a 1% widening of that gap, pretty minor, really. Most 5e players at our FLGS have been playing since Encounters or are are returning fans having last played 2e (a heartening number of them, really - I see faces every week that I only used to see 1/yr at conventions).

I used to be a 3.5/Pathfinder fan, but for some time before the release of 5e I was getting disillusioned with PF - way too crunch-heavy, and I was missing some of the old free-wheeling spirit of 2e. I don't know if that makes me count as a 3.5/PF fan in your eyes, but I am rather smitten with 5e. I play in a game every few weeks with one group, and was about to start a game with another but went for Star Wars: Age of Rebellion instead (which is all sorts of fun - we're getting a lot of mileage out of the add-on adventure to the Beginner game)

 

[Sacrosanct]

I wouldn't be surprised if you had said something very like that, back in 2008 or so, you might even have carefully avoided talking to anyone who had played 4e, just be sure it'd be true. Or not, no one can check up on you...

Nope, I never did. I treated 4e the same way I treated 3e. "Not my thing, but people seem to like it, but I'm sticking with AD&D." This very well may surprise you, but if I don't like an edition, I don't feel the need to troll the forums of that edition constantly making sure everyone knows I don't like it. I hang around groups of discussions I have an interest in.

Point is, is that by using your logic, I could have said that. Personally, I think you're shifting the goal posts because you realized that your initial claim is pretty weak to stand on. But that's just me. Your ad hominem earlier, and now this implication of a strawman just reinforces that opinion.

*Edit* Either way, the problem is solved, because now you have, in this very thread, had PF fans say the like the game. If you don't care about people's opinions on the internet or don't count them in anyway, well then I guess that begs the question, "What are you doing here, and posting so prolifically to boot?"

 

[Tony Vargas]

I used to be a 3.5/Pathfinder fan, but for some time before the release of 5e I was getting disillusioned with PF

Interesting, that's two of you in rapid succession.

I don't know if that makes me count as a 3.5/PF fan in your eyes, but I am rather smitten with 5e.

I'm not claiming anyone posting is anything other than what they represent themselves as, that was Sacrosanct trolling me, because I dared to share what I'd heard from 3.5 fans, and it didn't fit his biases.

Nope, I never did. I treated 4e the same way I treated 3e. "Not my thing, but people seem to like it, but I'm sticking with AD&D." This very well may surprise you, but if I don't like an edition, I don't feel the need to troll the forums of that edition constantly making sure everyone knows I don't like it.

Not the same 'Sacrosanct,' then? I guess there are some very similar handles. There's several really close to emirikol, for instance, one reasonable, another a world-class edition warrior...

:shrug:

 

[Shasarak]

I disregard other people's opinions, as not being representative of what I want to hear.

That's either what I've been told, or what I wanted to hear. Same difference.

It is always good to hear from smart and intelligent...probably good looking too... people who agree with what I think.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Not to me, they haven't.

Well I just have. I am a PF fan. I like PF. I like playing PF. I still read their OGC. If any of my group still played, I would play with them, and I would like it.

I don't say PF is flawed because I dislike it. I say it's flawed for the same I reason I say the original XCOM is flawed. Because I think it is. I rank it below another system because I think it belongs there. And, to be frank, I kind dislike Shadowrun 4th ed, because it doesn't have Decks in it.

 

[Jessica]

5e is a great edition but I wouldn't say it's the best edition. Then again "best edition" is completely subjective based on the person doing the grading.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What gets tossed around here, though, it doesn't carry a lot of weight. Say you've "never heard ______" and someone will leap up and shout "______!" just because.

Well I just have. I am a PF fan.

You left out where you think 5e is the best thing ever.

I'm a little put out, actually. I was genuinely expecting a lot of self-declared PF fans to come out of the woodwork praising 5e, but instead I get two former/disilusioned PF fans (thanks for your honesty, BTW) praising 5e, and one PF fan not actually getting to the praise. Unless that's what you meant by "Well I just have," in which case, thanks!

5e is a great edition but I wouldn't say it's the best edition. Then again "best edition" is completely subjective based on the person doing the grading.

There's some objective qualities a game should or shouldn't have to be 'good' (or, at least, to avoid being bad, or qualify as a game, at all), but preference always remains entirely subjective, and rightly so. There's never any need to justify or prove a preference, but that doesn't stop people from wanting theirs validated, or even forced on others.

 

[Fanaelialae]

(2) Like feats, Multiclassing. Not enough "campaign considerations" for combo's and whatnot. I also don't like how they work; I don't want "one class at a time", I want "all classes at the same time". I want to be a "Fighter/Magic-User", not a "Fighter and Magic-User". You gain a level, and choose to up your MU side...well, that last level you apparently learned absolutely nothing to do with Fighting. This disconnect completely destroys my SoD (Suspension of Disbelief). I wish MC'ing was moe like 1e/2e. But, again, like Feats, MC'ing is OPTIONAL and I don't allow it in my campaign without very specific reasons/allowances. So there's that...

You know, I was looking at the 5e xp table and I think AD&D style multiclassing would be feasible. Not perfectly balanced of course (that wasn't even the case in AD&D) but I suspect it would be functional.

Multiclassed characters would start a level behind single classed characters (once the single classed are level 2). When the single classed characters are 20th level, a two-classed character would be 15th level, while a three-classed character would be 12th. You become more versatile at the cost of raw power. This type of multiclassing would need to be done when the character is created, and probably shouldn't be combined with 5e MCing.

- Hit Dice would be the average of all classes. (A fighter/wizard's HD would be [[1d10 + 1d6] / 2] + Con.)
- Gain all armor, weapon, and tool proficiencies.
- Choose one strong and one weak save, from those available to your classes, to be proficient in. (If you want to be old school about this, give them proficiency in saves from all of their classes, but I suspect that might be overkill.)
- Choose the highest number of skills gained from among your classes. These skills can be chosen from any of your class lists.
- Starting gold as an average of your classes.
- Gain features from all classes. Spell slots should be as a single-classed character, but spells known would be gained as normal (per the 5e MCing rules).

Admittedly, these characters will gain a LOT of ASIs. Not counting fighter/rogue bonus ASIs, a two-classed character will gain 6, while a three-classed character will gain 9. Arguably this is okay, since such a character is likely to be quite MAD. The only restriction that I would put on such characters might be to say that ASIs gained at the same level must apply to different ability scores. That would curb the absurdity of a three-class character boosting an ability score of 14 to 20 overnight.

 

[Azurewraith]

You know, I was looking at the 5e xp table and I think AD&D style multiclassing would be feasible. Not perfectly balanced of course (that wasn't even the case in AD&D) but I suspect it would be functional.

Multiclassed characters would start a level behind single classed characters (once the single classed are level 2). When the single classed characters are 20th level, a two-classed character would be 15th level, while a three-classed character would be 12th. You become more versatile at the cost of raw power. This type of multiclassing would need to be done when the character is created, and probably shouldn't be combined with 5e MCing.

- Hit Dice would be the average of all classes. (A fighter/wizard's HD would be [[1d10 + 1d6] / 2] + Con.)
- Gain all armor, weapon, and tool proficiencies.
- Choose one strong and one weak save, from those available to your classes, to be proficient in. (If you want to be old school about this, give them proficiency in saves from all of their classes, but I suspect that might be overkill.)
- Choose the highest number of skills gained from among your classes. These skills can be chosen from any of your class lists.
- Starting gold as an average of your classes.
- Gain features from all classes. Spell slots should be as a single-classed character, but spells known would be gained as normal (per the 5e MCing rules).

Admittedly, these characters will gain a LOT of ASIs. Not counting fighter/rogue bonus ASIs, a two-classed character will gain 6, while a three-classed character will gain 9. Arguably this is okay, since such a character is likely to be quite MAD. The only restriction that I would put on such characters might be to say that ASIs gained at the same level must apply to different ability scores. That would curb the absurdity of a three-class character boosting an ability score of 14 to 20 overnight.

You sir have intrigued me never played AD&D im assuming there was a table that governed the level gap somewhere but this sounds interesting.