Still, I'm facing the desire of a regular to try 3.5 again. How have players of older editions found 5e in comparison? Positive? Better Worse, broken? Too Restrictive?
For background, I got my start with AD&D (First Edition) in 1993 and didn't really switch over to Second Edition until 1997-1998. I went in for
Player's Option as hard as possible-- most of my friends did not care for it-- and still have a tremendous fondness for the
Player's Option rules that sadly does not extend to the AD&D rules underneath. Switched to 3.0
and 3.5 on their respective launch dates-- literally bought the first copies of the PHB sold at my bookstore and ran sessions those nights; burned out on 3.X and switched to non-D&D games (for professional reasons) around 2006 or 2007. Skipped 4e
almost entirely-- one session total, during the 5e playtests-- but talked my friends into buying me the 5e core books for a game I ran for... over a year and a half.
I'm going to try to stick to value-neutral objective facts and my feelings
about those objective facts-- I'm not interested in defending my position, and I'm
even less interested in trying to tell someone they're wrong about having fun-- but I really honestly
hate Fifth Edition in a way I've never hated any version of
Dungeons & Dragons before, and I've only ever
hated a couple of other games the same way.
Also, for perspective... until recently I would have said that AD&D
Player's Option was my absolute favorite version of D&D, with
Pathfinder being a reasonably close second with the right third-party/homebrew fixes. I've recently lost my taste for the AD&D mechanics... so I would say that my
ideal form of D&D would be Classic (or a clone) with the
Player's Option and/or
Pathfinder supplements attached. I am designing my own personal "clone"/heartbreaker to this effect.
Starting with the negatives-- so that I can finish with the positives-- these are my complaints:
Multiclassing: This is almost exactly the same system as 3.X, except that it doesn't have any of the years of support that 3.5 put into patching it-- there is no Mystic Theurge, the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are
less-than-half spellcaster archetypes for Fighter and Rogue, and there are no Feats for stacking class features. Spellcasting levels now
partially stack in a way that doesn't address the multiclassing problem in 3.X, while Extra Attack no longer stacks at all.
Proficiency Bonus: There is no difference in attack rolls between Fighters and Wizards, which I might be okay with. Proficient Saving Throws advance at the same rate... but non-proficient Saving Throws
do not advance at all. 3.X characters get worse at their saving throws-- over time-- relative to level-appropriate threats... which I consider a problem, and which 5e made entirely worse. (Failing Saves is
less disastrous than it is in 3.X, but the assumption is that you'll usually fail and
fail more often at higher levels, and that doesn't work for me.) Skills are either Untrained, Trained, or Expertise... and
intentionally, an Untrained character with a high ability score is capable of performing all of the same tasks as someone with Expertise, even if they are somewhat less likely to succeed.
Bounded Accuracy: You have Ability Score Increases, like in 3.X/4e, but your Ability Scores are capped at 20 regardless of Race. Once you get your main ability scores up to 20, that's when you start trading in your ASIs for Feats. If Feats are allowed. This makes characters feel kinda samey and, combined with the skill problem, makes higher-level characters feel like, despite their advanced class features, they're not really more powerful or more competent than lower-level characters.
Subraces: I've always hated subraces, dating back to the original Night of the Living Elves (AD&D, high school, nine players, eight and a half elves) and then some. In the 3.X era they became little more than a cheap excuse to always be able to play an Elf with a +2 bonus to the main ability score for your class. In 5e, despite still being
supposedly representative of discrete subpopulations within the larger race... they are literally nothing more than racial variants optimized for different clases. (And Drow, of course.)
Attack Cantrips: Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that spellcasters can do more magical stuff... and I maybe kinda like the flavor of
casting a spell each and every round, instead of throwing darts until it's time for a showstopper. (I'm divided on this.) But the way cantrip damage scales, your
at-will, unlimited ranged attacks-- regardless of class-- do more damage than either melee or ranged basic attacks from a character who doesn't have major damage-boosting class features.
I could go on, but these round out my major complaints. On a more positive note:
Advantage/Disadvantage: Replacing all of the fiddly little +1/2 bonuses with the binary Advantage and Disadvantage makes gameplay much quicker and easier to make rulings on the fly... and making it so they
do not stack, to prevent people from hunting down every possible source of Advantage or Disadvantage is legitimately the only part of 5e I would describe as a
stroke of genius.
Spellcasting: Using higher-level spell slots to cast more powerful versions of lower level spells is great, and it means classes don't have to be as picky about
knowing or
preparing so many spells of a certain level. Differentiating between classes that prepare spells versus classes that know spells is great... the way this interacts with Cleric Domains and Paladin Oaths is great. 4e did Ritual Magic better... but 5e
still does it, unlike 3.X.
Natural Healing: The use of Hit Dice, clearly derived from 4e's Healing Surges, is great for natural healing and overall resilience.
General Warrior Buffs: You can take all of your attacks at your full attack bonus while moving. The penalty for climbing or jumping while wearing heavy armor is gone, and the penalty for sneaking in heavy armor is
much more reasonable.
General Spellcaster Nerfs: Concentration. No spell scaling unless you use higher slots. I know I already bitched about the Saving Throw thing... but the greatly reduced efficacy of Save-or-Die or Save-or-Suck spells compared to blasting or buffing your party.
But 5E should have taken more from 4E, they took some things and make them better or worse:
I can't claim to be a big fan of 4e, but I will say that it had some solid ideas and that 5e generally picked the rights ones to keep-- but I wished they'd
kept them instead of grinding them up and putting them in a can of cat food so the grognards didn't notice.
At-will cantrips/powers, better in 5E than in 4E.
Hard disagree. Class-specific at-wills
for every class was a much better design, and the way at-will powers worked/scaled was much more sensibile in 4th.
Healing surges in 4E are better mechanics than HDs in 5E.
5min recharge encounter powers are better that 1hr long short rest (1hr is NOT a short rest).
return to 3E-like spells and spells slots is far better than dull, bland "Daily" powers/spells in 4E.
100%.
+1/2 level bonus on EVERYTHING, no matter what, is the worst mechanics I have ever seen in any D&D game, 5E's +2 -> +6 proficiency is biggest improvement over 4E and 3.5E B.A.B. and skill ranks.
And maybe +1/2 level to
everything isn't great... but it's a hell of a lot better than +12 being
the very best in the world and 20th level characters running around with honest-to-god +0 to
anything. Of the three systems on display, 5e is easily and most obnoxiously the worst.