D&D 5E First experience with 5th edition and Lost Mines of Phandelver (no spoilers)

[thecasualoblivion]

This kind of post brings up so many questions.

If you don't like 5E, why post to this forum?

Because, for better or worse, I have made a long term commitment to a 5E campaign and enjoy discussing my experiences in it, be they positive or negative.

I played/DMed 4E all the way from first to epic, what can you do with 4E that you can't with 5? The main issue I had with 4E was that everyone used magic (how else do you explain a fighter's "Come and get it").

The short answer is fun, dynamic combat, better character options, player empowerment, and a more modern and high powered aesthetic

You think 2E is better? THAC0 anyone? What makes it "better"?

Out of the book it isn't better, and has less interesting combat options, less character generation options, and is less modern than 5E. That being said, IMO 5E doesn't do any of those things to my satisfaction(compared to 3E, 4E, 13th Age, or other modern non-D&D systems) so any advantage it would have over 2E in those cases is more or less moot. That being said, I prefer my take(after houseruling) on 2E's combat to 5E, and I have years of experience, system mastery, and a pile of custom house rules for 2E that make it a better fit for a fast, rules light D&D(the only real selling point of 5E to me) than vanilla 5E. I could customize 5E, but that would take a lot of work, work I've already completed for 2E.

How does the game system affect your campaign? I found 4E, with it's emphasis on ultra-fine-detailed powers ended up limiting creativity, but it was still peripheral to the campaign itself.

To me the rules are what enables me to tell a story with my players. I've played all versions of D&D and to me this version strikes the best balance so far. The system seems to get out of the way of storytelling while still enabling gameplay.

4E's heavy crunch never got in the way of roleplaying to me and my groups. I played over 10 years of crunch heavy 3E and 4E, and have played Rolemaster and Hero/Champions as well. I'm perfectly comfortable in a heavy crunch system.

There is a thread further explaining my relationship with 5E in this forum, it had 1207 posts in it last time I checked and is near the top.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Wow. I have the exact opposite opinion. Not only as a three decades plus veteran of every single edition myself (not to mention countless other systems), but as someone who regularly interfaces with literally hundreds and hundreds of TT gamers on a very regular basis. In person. In gaming environments.

I'm seeing things very different from your above statement.

Everything I like about D&D, some other edition does it better. It also bears saying that I'm not a fan of D&D "tradition", and preferred the modern bits of 3E and 4E.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

Because, for better or worse, I have made a long term commitment to a 5E campaign and enjoy discussing my experiences in it, be they positive or negative.



The short answer is fun, dynamic combat, better character options, player empowerment, and a more modern and high powered aesthetic

Out of the book it isn't better, and has less interesting combat options, less character generation options, and is less modern than 5E. That being said, IMO 5E doesn't do any of those things to my satisfaction(compared to 3E, 4E, 13th Age, or other modern non-D&D systems) so any advantage it would have over 2E in those cases is more or less moot. That being said, I prefer my take(after houseruling) on 2E's combat to 5E, and I have years of experience, system mastery, and a pile of custom house rules for 2E that make it a better fit for a fast, rules light D&D(the only real selling point of 5E to me) than vanilla 5E. I could customize 5E, but that would take a lot of work, work I've already completed for 2E.




4E's heavy crunch never got in the way of roleplaying to me and my groups. I played over 10 years of crunch heavy 3E and 4E, and have played Rolemaster and Hero/Champions as well. I'm perfectly comfortable in a heavy crunch system.

There is a thread further explaining my relationship with 5E in this forum, it had 1207 posts in it last time I checked and is near the top.

Thanks for the reply. I completely disagree of course ... it sounds like you like a home-brew version of D&D that you initially based on 2E.

As far as 4E rules not getting in the way of creativity and role play, I'm not sure I can exactly put my finger on exactly what it was about the system that seemed to make it into a board game. All I can say is I've had this discussion with many, many people and they all agree. I blame the combination of skill challenges (good in theory, too die roll dependent in practice) and everybody being a caster with a list of spells that did x and only x.

The one guy that still says they liked 4E is a very heavy rule-lawyer into ultimate optimizations (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Anyway, good luck and good gaming.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

To each his own, but by every available public measure (including the article on the Enworld front page) 5E is the most popular version of D&D out there including Pathfinder.

But yeah, I agree. I started playing far longer ago than I care to remember, this is my favorite edition.

To clarify, I have no doubt there are plenty of players (new and old) who dislike 5e. And they are entitled to do so. Enjoy whatever you like. More power to you, and all that.

My problem was his sweeping claim that 5e somehow "lacks a selling point to veterans of previous editions". Utter hogwash. Demonstrably so given all we know of its overwhelming popularity in the market. A market chock full of veterans of previous editions.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

To clarify, I have no doubt there are plenty of players (new and old) who dislike 5e. And they are entitled to do so. Enjoy whatever you like. More power to you, and all that.

My problem was his sweeping claim that 5e somehow "lacks a selling point to veterans of previous editions". Utter hogwash. Demonstrably so given all we know of its overwhelming popularity in the market. A market chock full of veterans of previous editions.

My comment was me agreeing with the OP in his opinion that there isn't much that's new and fresh in 5E.

 

[Oofta]

To clarify, I have no doubt there are plenty of players (new and old) who dislike 5e. And they are entitled to do so. Enjoy whatever you like. More power to you, and all that.

My problem was his sweeping claim that 5e somehow "lacks a selling point to veterans of previous editions". Utter hogwash. Demonstrably so given all we know of its overwhelming popularity in the market. A market chock full of veterans of previous editions.

Don't get me wrong - I don't see any reason to get into an edition war. No skin off my teeth if someone else has different taste.

Some of the statements just came across as slightly trollish and far too broad. As you state, it's obvious that 5E appeals to a lot of veteran players. Many of the people I play with are old timers, and newbies seem to pick up the spirit of the game faster than older editions.

Of course if there are hordes of 2E-loving grognards out there I probably wouldn't cross their paths anyway.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

My comment was me agreeing with the OP in his opinion that there isn't much that's new and fresh in 5E.

I disagree. Off the top of my head:

• It may not be obvious at first, but bounded accuracy has a huge impact.
• Wizards no longer become superstars that outshine every other class at higher levels.
• Clerics can shine in their own right, not just as support characters.
• Backgrounds give interesting flexibility in character design without layers of endless class variations.
• Minor variations in rulings are encouraged and help shape the feel of a campaign.

I'm sure there are other things, but I need to get something done today.

Is it a revolutionary change? No. They tried that with 4E, and while I enjoyed it at lower levels it was a different type of game with a different feel than other versions of the game.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yeah, that was a weird point to make. 5e, moreso than any edition in the past, has been successful in attracting back in Grognards who stuck with OSR/1e/2e and who never made the switch to 3e+. It has also been successful in attracting back "lapsed" gamers (those who played in the 70s/80s/90s, stopped, and have wanted an entry point back into the game). In addition, it has also been successful in attracting gamers who want to teach their kids/families to play.

Finally, it has been fairly successful in attracting the 3e/4e/PF players.

Has it been totally successful? No. IME, there are those who still love PF/3e, and will never switch. There are those who were ardent defenders of 4e, and feel abandoned by WoTC's decision to retreat (which I understand- after you spend so much time vociferously defending a decision to go a certain way ... to have that position abandoned by the company you were defending would be terrible). And there are those who just don't like 5e (nothing, ever, can appeal to everyone at everytime).

But to say it lacks a selling point to veterans of previous editions is in derogation of reality.

A minor point would be that when I say "veterans of previous edition" I give equal weight(possibly greater weight since they are a greater proportion of the veterans I know) to veterans of 3E/4E as to veterans of OSR/1E/2E, while there is a minor implication in the above quote of the opposite,