D&D 5E Is 5e really that different?

[Thunderfoot]

Everyone's perception of everyone else's ideas of what the game is or is not supposed to be has really hacked a lot of people off.

One might even say:
Perception is 9/10ths of the craw.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The biggest change in D&D (IMO) over the years was the d20 shift to 3E. In many ways, it really became a different game and personally I wish they had called it something else. But, I understand the importance of brand names, so I get why they stuck with D&D...

From what I understand, 4E went too far in overcomplicating things, and so 5E went too far back in over simplifying things, and hopefully 6E will swing the pendulum back the other way, but slow it down.

Another big change when 3E came along as in the spirit of the game. 3E felt completely different to me than AD&D and prior editions. I don't get that sort of difference in feel between 3E and 5E, for instance.

 

[Oofta]

The biggest change in D&D (IMO) over the years was the d20 shift to 3E. In many ways, it really became a different game and personally I wish they had called it something else. But, I understand the importance of brand names, so I get why they stuck with D&D...

From what I understand, 4E went too far in overcomplicating things, and so 5E went too far back in over simplifying things, and hopefully 6E will swing the pendulum back the other way, but slow it down.

Another big change when 3E came along as in the spirit of the game. 3E felt completely different to me than AD&D and prior editions. I don't get that sort of difference in feel between 3E and 5E, for instance.

It's funny what people think of as a major difference. When we picked up 3E and saw they had changed to math to always adding and higher being better our response was "about time". It didn't really change anything to the flow of the game, it just made the math easier for some people.

 

[billd91]

It's funny what people think of as a major difference. When we picked up 3E and saw they had changed to math to always adding and higher being better our response was "about time". It didn't really change anything to the flow of the game, it just made the math easier for some people.

With respect to things like skills and attacks and, most particularly, Armor Class - yeah, I'd largely agree. At least, that was our initial reaction. And within the bounds of the traditional stat range (3-18+ a few), it all worked reasonably well and was easy to grok. But there were hints of other challenges on the horizon.

The big change that some of us felt was in magic items. A few things were the same, but the whole structure of other things changed. Plus the ease of magic item creation. Those amounted to a big change, one much bigger than the designers ever predicted.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I just finished a phone call with my friend who started back when we were 5 y.o. together in '78. He played 3E for over 12 years he said and misses it a lot. In that discussion a bit part of the change came out:

In prior editions, the game revolved around the adventure. Your character didn't really change much because there wasn't a lot of things involved in character development. Characters were pretty simply in many ways. The adventure rules were complex.

In 3E and on, the game seems (to me anyway) to revolve more about your character and what they can do, etc. than the adventure. Characters can get pretty complex (5E less so), but the rules are now much simpler (5E more so).

In short: what you are doing vs. what you can do.

That was the change in the "feel of the game" I meant, really.

 

[Rikka66]

From what I understand, 4E went too far in overcomplicating things, and so 5E went too far back in over simplifying things

I would say this isn't accurate. 4e homogenized many things, changed a ton of things, and more than being complicated it just gave so many options that combats would drag on. Also feat bloat.

Especially in the early years of 5e the discussion was much more about 5e being a return to "classic" D&D after 4e was such a radical shift. The simplification is certainly part of the discussion, though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would say this isn't accurate. 4e homogenized many things, changed a ton of things, and more than being complicated it just gave so many options that combats would drag on. Also feat bloat.

That could very well be true. Like I said, "from what I understand" because I never played 4E and only glimpsed at the rule books once when I had the chance.

Especially in the early years of 5e the discussion was much more about 5e being a return to "classic" D&D after 4e was such a radical shift. The simplification is certainly part of the discussion, though.

5E is not at all a return to "classic" D&D though, however it might be more a return to 3E?

 

[Vaalingrade]

6e should just be 4e revised (ignoring Essentials forever) with a Guy Fawkes mask on the cover.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

@infinityman: yes 5e is a different game and is the greatest thin in RPGs since dice. It is superior to any TSR product and any previous WotC or Paizo product. It the single greatest role-playing game ever. Thank you for reminding me.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

6e should just be 4e revised (ignoring Essentials forever) with a Guy Fawkes mask on the cover.

Oh I think there was some good work in the essentials line. We had a good time adding and essentials slayer to our party.

I’ve always get 4e would have done better if they had started with essentials and the moved to the full AEDU / PHB format

I think there is a place for both