What 5e got wrong

[Hussar]

Your average to above average 1e 20th level fighter had 82.5 hit points. If he was lucky enough to be well above average and have a con bonus, he probably didn't have more than +2 per hit die (not level) for a 16 con and had 100.5 at 20th level. If beyond all expectations he was among the very, very few to have an 18 con, he had 118.5 hit points at 20th level.

Your average 20th level 5e fighter will have double that in all probability. The other classes couldn't even get more than +2 per die, had lower hit die types, and less hit points per level after 9th, so they won't even have that 100 that the fighter has. For example, a 20th level thief with no con bonus has an average of 53.5 hit points at 20th and an average of 71.5 if he has a 16+ for con.

This REALLY depends on rolling method. If you used the method in the Unearthed Arcana, for example, you rolled 8d6, choose the best 3 for your Con. Having an 18 Con wasn't that much of a stretch.

But, in any case, I was thinking more about single digit level characters. Sure, after 10th, the 5e characters will race ahead, but, prior to 10th, there isn't much of a difference. A 5th level AD&D fighter or a 5e fighter is somewhere around 35 HP, by and large.

 

[Maxperson]

This REALLY depends on rolling method. If you used the method in the Unearthed Arcana, for example, you rolled 8d6, choose the best 3 for your Con. Having an 18 Con wasn't that much of a stretch.

My examples included 18 cons. I've also never met a DM who allowed that optional rolling method. I tried more than once to get them to allow it, too.

But, in any case, I was thinking more about single digit level characters. Sure, after 10th, the 5e characters will race ahead, but, prior to 10th, there isn't much of a difference. A 5th level AD&D fighter or a 5e fighter is somewhere around 35 HP, by and large.

Single digit level character don't have to worry about power word kill, so what's the point?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Single digit level character don't have to worry about power word kill, so what's the point?

That's not entirely accurate.

In AD&D there weren't really any encounter creation guidelines to speak of (at least not how we know them today). A low level party could most certainly encounter an archmage (or lich) capable of casting PWK. This is particularly true if they went into a high level area hoping to score some powerful magic items. I'm sure not all groups played this way (many of mine didn't) but it was a thing back then.

In 5e, a CR12 Archmage is capable of casting 9th level spells though, admittedly, the DM would have to be cruel and swap Time Stop out for PWK. A CR 12 is only a (1x) deadly fight for a group of four level 8 adventurers. Even if the party is only level 6, the fight is still only deadly x 1.5, which is certainly feasible.

 

[Azurewraith]

That's not entirely accurate.

In AD&D there weren't really any encounter creation guidelines to speak of (at least not how we know them today). A low level party could most certainly encounter an archmage (or lich) capable of casting PWK. This is particularly true if they went into a high level area hoping to score some powerful magic items. I'm sure not all groups played this way (many of mine didn't) but it was a thing back then.

In 5e, a CR12 Archmage is capable of casting 9th level spells though, admittedly, the DM would have to be cruel and swap Time Stop out for PWK. A CR 12 is only a (1x) deadly fight for a group of four level 8 adventurers. Even if the party is only level 6, the fight is still only deadly x 1.5, which is certainly feasible.

Hmmm swap out time stop for pwk you say who would do such a thing? Good idea!

 

[Awesome Adam]

What 5E got Wrong ? The Index in the PHB !!

There is nothing more frusterating than trying to look something up quick, and instead of finding a page number being told to go look up another entry in the same index.

 

[delericho]

What 5E got Wrong ? The Index in the PHB !!

There is nothing more frusterating than trying to look something up quick, and instead of finding a page number being told to go look up another entry in the same index.

Yep. Fortunately, there's a fix.

 

[Azurewraith]

Yep. Fortunately, there's a fix.

Will you have my babies?

 

[KahlessNestor]

I play Pathfinder and 5E both, alternative weekends. I enjoy both systems, though I have to say I prefer 5E for its simplicity and ease of play. So if I was forced to choose one, I would play 5e over PF.

Our PFS group was kicked out of the FLGS for whatever reason, so we play at a nearby restaurant. We were a bit miffed to hear the store started running AL when 5e dropped.

At my main store the only PF game being played there (I was in the group) just ended, but not before discussion of switching to 5e. (We agreed to switch, but I think the gm was burned out, so he ended it). But every night you can find at least one 5e group, often more.

So yes, PF players are defecting. Or playing both. I still by all the PF books even though I have barely scratched Core and never played anything outside of Core.

 

[Jessica]

What 5E got Wrong ? The Index in the PHB !!

There is nothing more frusterating than trying to look something up quick, and instead of finding a page number being told to go look up another entry in the same index.

I agree. What the heck were they thinking when they wrote that index? I'm not asking for awesome indexes(indices?) that actually are like a glossary/index hybrid with some terms having their definitions right there, but I don't want to constantly get redirected to another part of the index. :/

 

[Herschel]

In terms of meeting requirements with randomized stats, those are still easier to meet in 5e than either 1e or 2e: while each of the core classes (Fighter, Magic-User/Mage, Cleric, and Thief) in 1e and 2e had lower base requirements, each of the races that allowed multiclassing had score requirements to meet as well, and in 1e, level limits were exceptionally gimped, unless the PC's prime requisite was ridiculously high (as of Unearthed Arcana). In addition, most sub-classes had multiple score requirements as high as 13-15, with the paladin requiring a 17 in Charisma (not to mention the UA Cavalier and Cavalier-Paladin's obscene score requirements).

Both earlier systems default generation was 3d6 in order, yielding average scores of 10.5, making it highly unlikely to generate anything beyond a single class PC that's a member of the core four, and little choice in effectiveness of that character, based on scores.

Meanwhile, 5e's 4d6 yields an average of 12.25 per score, and can be assigned as desired. Neither classes nor races have score requirements anymore - only multiclass entry (which is an optional rule), and the 13 requirement is achievable after the 4th level score boost, even with a PC statted with straight 12s. A 1e or 2e PC couldn't hope to improve paltry starting scores, short of intervention by major magical artifact - an average core class PC remained such, with both multiclassing and the harder to achieve dualclassing completely out of his or her reach.

In fact, in 5e, good stats, while important, are both easily achievable and equally assignable, whereas 1e and 2e random generation was far from either.

You completely missed the point. Stats (3d6 vs 4d6) are going to average slightly higher with 4d6, and 4d6 was common back in 1E/2E also.

The point was that you could get away with lower stats in 1E/2E much easier because the bonuses were almost all smaller (except 18__ damage bonuses) and saves were on the chart, not stat-based. Only a few subclasses were MAD rather than all. The game math, while clunky, wasn't as dependent on high attributes. In other words, unless you were a stickler for encumberance, there was basically no difference between a 9-strength fighter and a 16-strength fighter.

As for Level Limits, which has no bearing on this point anyway, who actually used those? They were probably the single most ignored rule in the game.