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

[teitan]

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.

I'd argue that 3e itself wasn't all that different to us back then. It made sense as a natural growth of 2e and the revised 2e Player's Option series. It didn't seem out of place at all. The disconnect seemed to be 4e was so different, even with some late 3.5 era books supposedly being stealth previews of 4e, like Tome of Battle, it was still an extremely different game. I had a similar reaction to Pathfinder 2e that I did to 3e but initially I did not, my initial reaction was similar to my reaction to 4e.

I hadn't seen much of PF outside of the core book and the Bestiary when it originally released and had no interest in PF1 because of my 3.5 burnout. It's success certainly continues to show 3.5 had a lot of legs even now but I just didn't have an interest in that type of game anymore and honestly I was so burnt out by 3.5 I didn't play an RPG until 5e came out. I bought 4e, I liked what I saw as a game design concept, I even had essentials but it sure seemed like a lot to learn and I didn't have the inclination. I got 5e and was enamored of the simplicity of the system. It is a pretty ingenious system.

I grabbed PF2 when it came out and I saw... 4e and I liked it. It was interesting but I thought it had moved away from D&D in interesting ways that gave PF it's own identity. Solid system and I didn't think it had a lot of that PF3.x DNA in it. So I wound up selling it, I loved it but I sold it all.

A few months later, we had a friend who wanted to run a PF game for us and so we bought the pocket core book and I was initially very reticent to play. Then we got the other pocket guides and I saw exactly what Paizo did to 3.x and then I saw what they did with PF2 and now I see it exactly like I did 2e to 3e, especially after reading Pathfinder Unchained. I also see it in Starfinder and how that worked with the development of PF2 as well. I actually really enjoyed playing PF1 for the short time we played in that game. It was a lot of fun.

Now 5e, I see it as having revived classic D&D while also embracing new D&D and the things that have changed in how people play which is exactly what Mearls and Thompson were aiming for. Newer players currently dwarf "classic" players with their Dragonborn Tielfing zombie bardbarians and that's ok.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I will add that my favorite version of D&D is always my home version. We always homebrew and hack D&D and that is what I loved about it and in particular 5e. We have add the easiest time making 5e our game compared to previous editions.

I agree. One of the strong points in favour of 5e is how easy it is to hack and homebrew.

 

[Hussar]

To me, while there's many similarities here, the constraints placed on the 5e system while seemingly minor create a much different system and feel than the 4e system created.

Whereas to me, "feel" is such a nebulous concept that its pretty much meaningless except as as indicator of personal preference.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree. One of the strong points in favour of 5e is how easy it is to hack and homebrew.

I don't really understand this. One, only parts of 5e are easy to hack, others are mired deeply in hidden structures. I mean, if it was easy to hack, why are how to conduct rests so often discussed with some many commenting that solutions are not ideal no matter how you do it?

Second, why is a system that doesn't directly provide an open framework and explanation of how to adapt it considered easy to hack? 5e isn't really a toolkit system, it doesn't provide structures that are particularly adaptable. Hacking in 5e is really staying pretty darned close to 5e -- maybe adding some more skills or tweaking an ability or three.

 

[FrogReaver]

Whereas to me, "feel" is such a nebulous concept that its pretty much meaningless except as as indicator of personal preference.

I was being polite. Feel vs is objectively so.

 

[dave2008]

I don't really understand this. One, only parts of 5e are easy to hack, others are mired deeply in hidden structures. I mean, if it was easy to hack, why are how to conduct rests so often discussed with some many commenting that solutions are not ideal no matter how you do it?

Second, why is a system that doesn't directly provide an open framework and explanation of how to adapt it considered easy to hack? 5e isn't really a toolkit system, it doesn't provide structures that are particularly adaptable. Hacking in 5e is really staying pretty darned close to 5e -- maybe adding some more skills or tweaking an ability or three.

I disagree. I find 5e very easy to hack. That being said, what I consider hacking and you consider hacking may be different things and serve different needs. When I hack something, I don't need to worry about how that hack affects the entire game - I just need to consider how it affects our game. I find 5e is really good for that. Examples of our hacks:

• Bloodied Hit Points (BHP)
• Armor has AC and damage reduction (DR)
• Rest and recovery works normally for abilities and hit points, however,...
• ...BHP recover at the rate of 1/ extended rest (1 week)
• You die at 0 BHP
• You can spend 1 HD to recharge a short rest ability
• You can spend 2 HD to recharge a long rest ability
• You musts spend an HD each time you are healed (by magic or otherwise).
• You can spend an HD and add your prof. bonus to melee damage (if you are proficient in that weapon).
• Feats only* (no ASI, unless it is part of a feat)
• Cap ability scores at 18* (racial bonus extend the cap, but don't add to your score)

We have used other hacks for a specific genre feel in one-shots, but those are the hacks for our standard game.

Hacks we are considering for out next campaign:

• Capping standard HP at 10th level. Starting a 11th level you get fixed hit points based on your HD only: 1 for d6, 2 for d8, 3 for d10, and 4 for d12.
• Action speeds (not likely though)
• Spell disruption when a caster takes damage

*EDIT: I forgot these two house-rules in my initial post.
EDIT: I find all of these (together) change the feel of the game and were easy to implement.

 

[HammerMan]

I'm not sure that it makes many people upset, it's by far the most popular edition ever. It's usually people who like 4e who are upset by 5e, for a number of reasons:

sigh... this should be worth a look, as a huge 4e stan let me just say I am not expecting this to work out...

• 4e was very innovative (although quite disruptive, in both good and bad ways), and has taken the brunt of displeasure for what some people consider bad reasons.

agreed

• 5e is the complete opposite of 4e in design philosophy if you look at the D&D editions.

I don't know if it's a complete opposite. It is 2 steps forward and 4 steps back... almost like a knee jerk reaction but mostly I agree

• 5e's innovation are partially based on some of 4e ideas, and some people feel it's not recognised enough.

I don;t feel that way but I can see it

• 5e's innovations are along lines that some people really like and others don't and in particular:
  • It is not a technical edition at all, there is little inherent crunch (it's not the intent anyway, but some people don't like that principle)
  • It is written in natural language instead of technical jargon, and while it's certainly a reason for its very large success outside of its usual "geeky" market some people would prefer more precise rules.
  • The whole bounded accuracy is feeling a bit too limiting to some people, who would like more difference between lvl 1 and lvl 20

And possibly many more. But a lot of people (myself included) love 5e, and don't think that it upsets that many people...

Well that wasn't bad, I would add:
CASTER SUPREMACY built in
pillars of play that in 7 years got little to no support (but it looks like that is changeing)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree. I find 5e very easy to hack. That being said, what I consider hacking and you consider hacking may be different things and serve different needs. When I hack something, I don't need to worry about how that hack affects the entire game - I just need to consider how it affects our game. I find 5e is really good for that. Examples of our hacks:

• Bloodied Hit Points (BHP)
• Armor has AC and damage reduction (DR)
• Rest and recovery works normally for abilities and hit points, however,...
• ...BHP recover at the rate of 1/ extended rest (1 week)
• You die at 0 BHP
• You can spend 1 HD to recharge a short rest ability
• You can spend 2 HD to recharge a long rest ability
• You musts spend an HD each time you are healed (by magic or otherwise).
• You can spend an HD and add your prof. bonus to melee damage (if you are proficient in that weapon).

We have used other hacks for a specific genre feel in one-shots, but those are the hacks for our standard game.

Hacks we are considering for out next campaign:

• Capping standard HP at 10th level. Starting a 11th level you get fixed hit points based on your HD only: 1 for d6, 2 for d8, 3 for d10, and 4 for d12.
• Action speeds (not likely though)
• Spell disruption when a caster takes damage

EDIT: I find all of these (together) change the feel of the game and were easy to implement.

I don't really see how 5e enabled these hacks, though. What about 5e made this process easier vice any other game you might hack?

 

[dave2008]

I don't really see how 5e enabled these hacks, though. What about 5e made this process easier vice any other game you might hack?

No idea really. I can only speak relative to the games I've played: 1e/ BECMI; 4e, 5e, and Call of Cthulhu.

However, what I guess is that is a forgiving system. You can change a lot of things without breaking it. Is that true of other games? I don't know. I do know from experience it was easier to hack for me than the other games I've played in the past 30 years.

• 4e is a very strict / rigid system (like PF2) that wants to have everything in a particular place. It was more difficult for me to design hacks for that structure (though we didn't need to many in 4e).
• Call of Cthulhu (I had 4th edition I believe), well I didn't even try. It just seemed all to obtuse.
• 1e was very hackable, but it all felt so haphazard and unknowable. I did a lot of hacking back in 1e (20+ pages), but it felt like a chore compared to 5e.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't really see how 5e enabled these hacks, though. What about 5e made this process easier vice any other game you might hack?

Speaking for myself: 5e is robust in that you can make these kinds of changes without breaking the system. The small mods and limited number of active effects means you don't need to worry about too many synergies the way you would with a game like Pathfinder (either) or 4e. Adding a new condition that can grant a +1 in PF2 is a big deal and should be done with caution, because of how it impacts critical hits and therefore crit effects. Giving everyone a +1d6 in 5e is fine and won't break anything, because you'll just hit more.