D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Reynard]

I don't think anything could have sustained 3.5E longer than it lived. Yes I know PF really kept it alive for years lnger, but that was because 4E was not a replacement for it.

I don't think PF could have possibly sustained a successful business for 10 years based purely on that aspect. It would have dwindled away in a year or two if that was the case. 3.5 lived on for a long time and still does for many, many players, both in its original form and as Pathfinder 1E.

 

[LordEntrails]

I don't think PF could have possibly sustained a successful business for 10 years based purely on that aspect. It would have dwindled away in a year or two if that was the case. 3.5 lived on for a long time and still does for many, many players, both in its original form and as Pathfinder 1E.

Star Frontiers still lives on. But it certainly hasn't grown. I see it in the same light as 3.xE/PF. Except that SF can come back with new material, where new material for 3/PF won't add anything to the game and would just be more bloat.

 

[Reynard]

Star Frontiers still lives on. But it certainly hasn't grown. I see it in the same light as 3.xE/PF. Except that SF can come back with new material, where new material for 3/PF won't add anything to the game and would just be more bloat.

I'm not sure what the difference would be.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think this is a different topic, but encounter building and balance has been more art than science in all editions.

I allow all feats, multi classing, I assume PCs will have a legendary item by 20th level and so on. I do limit access to a small number of magic items until higher levels (i.e. boots of flying).

All I can do is say that I have no problem with gonzo PCs, I always have infinite dragons. Even if some of them have several levels of sorcerer with still spell and powerful illustrations. Or just take a page from Tucker's kobolds and play the enemy smart.

TLDR: balance issues are nothing new in my experience.

I know it’s you least favorite and everything, but encounters really were a science in 4e.

I really wish they’d kept the best design elements of 4e encounters, but with 5e basic math.

 

[Reynard]

I know it’s you least favorite and everything, but encounters really were a science in 4e.

I really wish they’d kept the best design elements of 4e encounters, but with 5e basic math.

I don't think it is possible. Encounter design worked in 4E (and works in PF2) because there is a LOT of heavy lifting done in the PC balance (along with monster balance). 5E does not have the kind of PC balance that either of those games does so there is literally no way to create a system that can balance encounters for, as an example, every possible 5th level party.

 

[Minigiant]

Only correction I have is its usually 2 things that you pick from lists of, which instead of 3 things, at the minimum. Here's the Sorcerer class table Sorcerer - Classes - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

Like, the sheer amount of choice and options on odd levels plus always picking from at least two lists of things each level is a LOT MORE mechanical content then 5E. They are in no way comparable in terms of actual feature choice.

Thisis why I think 4EE would have don't as well or better than 5ein it's zeitgeist.

For example, the "Essential As an Edition" fighter would have made the champion, battlemaster, and eldritch knight completely seperate "classes". This why the Battlemaster and the Eldritch Knight would not be bound to the simplicity of the Champion and each class would be focused on the archetype. With that the Knight class would be available to be made as a Offensive Defender with Face feature to push that fantasy whereas the Cavalier can "LG Charming Smite Monkey who doesn't cast spells" that same want. Classes would be as complex or simple as they need to be.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The sad part? It wasn't even the elaborate builds, it was something as simple as fireball too, we just kind of came to the conclusion that there wasn't really much of a reason to play a martial beside literally "I want to play a martial" because the spell casters out damage everything. GWM and SS could kind of keep up, but we had already wanted to ban them because not all the fighting styles had them and we wanted to bring them into line, even after our buffs to TWF, and they interacted in a really messy way with magic items due to the +whatever bonuses on magic weapons, which was one of my original impetuses for trying to redesign magic items to make them less... intense. We realized GMs were straight tripling HP midfight on creatures much higher level than the party for the boss fights to be exciting, too. Basically the system was just breaking down around us, so we switched, we've been pretty much happy since.

Definitely partly a perception thing, then. I mean, level 3 fireball just does not out damage a decently built level 5 fighter. In a single round, sure, but even then not reliably, with the fighter also turning limited resources into damage dice. The times where fireball can hit 6 creatures or whatever should be pretty rare, and caster damage rolls are much swingier than martial attack actions.

IME, a swashbuckler rogue kills more enemies than all but the most damage focused casters, and does so at-will.

But if you felt the need to ban certain feats, something (maybe several things) are wildly different about our games, and not just level of optimization, because I’ve had games where we went all out, and most of the group has very high “system mastery”.

Magic items, I’ll grant, are too wildly variable at a given rarity, and often much too clunky with stuff like the various staves of “here’s a whole extra level 5 caster worth of spells per day” nonsense.

I’m glad you are enjoying the system you’re using now, though. There is a lot that frustrates me in 5e, and I’ve been iterating a very different system for the past 10 years that at this point (basically v3 of the ruleset) I just enjoy more than 5e, so I get it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't think it is possible. Encounter design worked in 4E (and works in PF2) because there is a LOT of heavy lifting done in the PC balance (along with monster balance). 5E does not have the kind of PC balance that either of those games does so there is literally no way to create a system that can balance encounters for, as an example, every possible 5th level party.

Sure it’s possible. The actual math of any given level 5 party isn’t going to vary that wildly.

 

[Umbran]

This is a question about the popularity of D&D right now, more than being a question about any specific element of 5E.

It boils down to this: if it wasn't 5E (pick a different edition, it doesn't matter) but all the other circumstances were the same -- a new edition in 2014, references in the media, Critical Role and streaming in general, etc... -- would D&D still be having a major pop-cultural moment?

In other words: is there something special about 5E that created this moment, or does it "just happen to be" that 5E is the current edition?

Putting down my own thoughts before I read other responses that might influence them...

I think "special" is a semi-loaded word.

I don't think any other edition of the game that we've seen previously would have performed so well in the broad marketplace. I think 2e and earlier the designs are kind of clunky, as you'd expect of games from early in the invention of game design. 3e and 4e put so much force to design that they come up a bit too crunch/complicated to grab so many folks who aren't already dedicated to the game.

Mind you, that doesn't make 5e a better game than others in some overall sense - that's the loaded nature of "special". 5e gets people to play, and that is awesome. It is not the only awesome thing a game can do, though.

 

[Oofta]

I know it’s you least favorite and everything, but encounters really were a science in 4e.

I really wish they’d kept the best design elements of 4e encounters, but with 5e basic math.

I found them no more or less difficult to set up than 5E. May have been better (because they dictated what you should have at what level) in some ways at lower levels. High levels? A group of level 21 PCs should not have been able to make a fight against a solo 10 levels higher look like a walk in the park.