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

[Tony Vargas]

Rulings--I'm more of a system/RAW sort of player, so I'm ambivalent towards this leaning towards negative given the lack of player options in 5E to affect the story without involving the DM.

Do you exclusively play, or sometimes DM, as well?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Do you exclusively play, or sometimes DM, as well?

I haven't DMed since support for 4E ended, but historically I've DMed more than I've played. My preferences are the same either way, when I DM, I DM the game how I would want it to be if I was playing. I don't like making rulings more than I absolutely have to and prefer to empower players and have the system transparent and things codified in advance.

**EDIT** It's not technically accurate that I last DMed during the 4E era. I had forgotten I was DM for some of the 5E playtest, and I occasionally have filled in as DM for post-4E era LFR games when we had too many people and needed to add a table.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Seriously, I play 4E and 5E.

Me too.

That's plenty enough to know I prefer the combat or whatever of one to the other, to form opinions, or to compare how I feel about the two in comparison to each other. If that isn't enough for you, than I don't think I can do anything more for you.

This is an interesting stance to take, given how dismissive of mine. You know, when you insinuated you have a better grasp of comparing the two than I do because you are "currently playing both".

Based on the facts of your posts, I can say with certainty that I've played more of both than you have. Are my opinions more valid now?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Me too.

This is an interesting stance to take, given how dismissive of mine. You know, when you insinuated you have a better grasp of comparing the two than I do because you are "currently playing both".

Based on the facts of your posts, I can say with certainty that I've played more of both than you have. Are my opinions more valid now?

1. When exactly did I say my opinion was more informed than yours?

2. I can pretty much guarantee my assessment of my own feelings about D&D would be more accurate than your assessment of my feelings about D&D.

3. You have certainly played far more 5E than I have. I would have to include the playtest if I want to say I've participated in more than 10 sessions, and even then it's not that much more. I don't see how that would make my opinion less valid than yours.

 

[Oofta]

... It was not magic. It explicitly was not magic - like all martial powers, some of which may have been superhuman or extraordinary, but never supernatural.

My definition of a fighter being a magic user is certainly different from yours. No matter how you fluff it, several of a fighter's powers (to me and everyone I ever played 4E with) felt like magic. It might be slightly more accurate to say they felt supernatural.

Why? Well, they were limited to x number of times, just like a vancian spellcaster. They often didn't have a logical explanation such as my fighter's Rain of Steel giving him an aura of auto damage. I know it was justified by saying my dwarf flailed his hammer around wildly, but that made zero sense. The fluff never explained how Come and Get It worked with non-sentient creatures.

Can you have descriptive text? Sure. But that doesn't make the fact that I can stun most enemies (assuming they were not immune to stun from any source) with my hammer whether or not they have a physiology that includes a brain a non-supernatural power.

5e, OTOH, every class /does/ explicitly use magic.

Nope. Every class can use magic. A champion fighter is quite capable with nary a spell in sight.

All I can say is that many of us would just shrug when the rogue cast what his player called "Cone of Daggers" spell (flurry of daggers?) because we all had a hard time envisioning anything but a cartoon/anime version of someone throwing daggers. Or a spell.

No, he found 2e closer to what he wanted in some ways. That's just a preference, and only for aspects of the system, not the system as a whole - probably not THAC0, for instance.

I have no problem with people liking different versions of the game. I just take issue with broad statements like "veteran players don't...". It will be true with some people and not others.

Just like some people like sushi* but I don't, some people will like different versions of the game. I just don't see the point of trashing a version of the game you hate. On a message board dedicated to that version of the game.

*If I hear one more person say "you just haven't had good sushi" I may have to slap them. I've tried sushi multiple times, sometimes paying an exorbitant amount of money for the privalege.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

1. When exactly did I say my opinion was more informed than yours?

Hold up. When did I say you said that? [see: Strawman] What I said was that you insinuated it. Here you go.

2. I can pretty much guarantee my assessment of my own feelings about D&D would be more accurate than your assessment of my feelings about D&D.

Now if only you would quit transferring those personal feelings and assessments onto the entirety of the gaming population...

3. You have certainly played far more 5E than I have. I would have to include the playtest if I want to say I've participated in more than 10 sessions, and even then it's not that much more. I don't see how that would make my opinion less valid than yours.

There is a word, and even a phrase, for setting different benchmarks for others as you do yourself...

 

[Oofta]

1. When exactly did I say my opinion was more informed than yours?

2. I can pretty much guarantee my assessment of my own feelings about D&D would be more accurate than your assessment of my feelings about D&D.

3. You have certainly played far more 5E than I have. I would have to include the playtest if I want to say I've participated in more than 10 sessions, and even then it's not that much more. I don't see how that would make my opinion less valid than yours.

Huh? You've played less than a dozen sessions of 5E (including playtest versions which hardly count) and you're an expert?

 

[ZzarkLinux]

We're 18 months in, 5e's mature enough (to judge the quantity of content).

As a PHB-only player, I agree with you. To me, 4e Strength Paladins will always suck: I never bought Divine Power. 5e is already defined. Hell, they're talking about another "big mechanical expansion" soon because IMO they're already out of novel content for 5e.

Well, they're out of profitable content anyway, probably based on their surveys. So I agree i'ts time to judge 5e.

Unfortunately, I don't think you will be satisfied with 5e. WotC is targetting "newbies" and "younglings" because they want to make money and maximize their audience. 5e follows this business model. 6e will follow it too. 7e will also be designed for new players too. What does this mean?
(1) Overnight healing. Everybody heals overnight. Yay!
(2) Simple character generation. Math is boring!
(3) More class balance. I can run a fighter; the Cleric/Druid/Ranger don't make me sad!
(4) Removal of controversial mechanics. My DM can't yell at my alignment and make me cry!

I'm not being mean: I actually agree with these design decisions. I'm suprised multi-classing even made it onto 5e! I like simple streamlined games that emphasize gameplay and ignore decades old canon that I've never read.

Conversely, people who are attached to decades old canon or GURPS mechanical libraries will be disappointed. WotC doesn't think those printed-books are profitable enough nowadays. They probably plan to leave those risks and kickstarters to other temporary companies.

I have a pet conspiracy theory that it's to create a first impression that the game is deadlier than it is, when it actually gets relatively 'easy' quite quickly.

Almost missed this. I agree with you. WotC wanted to avoid the "4e mistake" where level-1-characters were balanced. No PCs died at level 1. OMG newbie videogame! The internet boards were alight with rage. I'm pretty sure this means WotC artificially inflated the lethality of early levels in 5e. Also this means that hardcore DMs are sadists

People expect new players to join a session, then die to a big trap or spell. That's D&D as they say. 5e carried that goal like most predecessors.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

Conversely, people who are attached to decades old canon or GURPS mechanical libraries will be disappointed.

The 5E bashing is getting old but I just have to point out that broad, blanket statements like this are BS. You may be disappointed, and that is your right, but the numbers certainly indicate that most people are not.