D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Neonchameleon]

5e to me has two huge things going for it:

• With unified mechanics it's far easier to learn the basic mechanics of 5e than it is any TSR era D&D - while 5e lacks the piles of modifiers of 3.X and 4e so it's simpler to understand.
• The Class/Subclass system makes it far easier than in any other edition to create a distinctive and evocative character

All of which means 5e is very casual friendly.

 

[Nightfly]

• The Class/Subclass system makes it far easier than in any other edition to create a distinctive and evocative character

It was arguably even easier to make a distinctive character in 3e, but having that character also be effective we another question entirely. Only a few builds were considered viable. Also, your character might not come into bloom for months and months -- not until after you've multiclassed a certain way, taken certain feats, and joined a prestige class.

5e makes it easy to play what you want, you start off doing cool stuff, and even sub-optimal characters still contribute. No surprise that's popular, especially with newer players.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Encounters in adventures are examples and suggestions. They are intended and assumed to be modified by the GM to better fit the party -- not just for difficulty but for fun. You can use them as is, but it's not a rule.

As to the other part: with the current slate of classes and subclasses there is something like 1.5 million possible combinations for a 5 pc party. Do you really think a game designer can write adventures balanced for that?

If all those combinations are still within the same power band as the core book, sure they can.

 

[Reynard]

If all those combinations are still within the same power band as the core book, sure they can.

That presupposes a level and kind of balance that is not present in 5e

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That presupposes a level and kind of balance that is not present in 5e

Yes, it is present.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Encounters in adventures are examples and suggestions. They are intended and assumed to be modified by the GM to better fit the party -- not just for difficulty but for fun. You can use them as is, but it's not a rule.

As to the other part: with the current slate of classes and subclasses there is something like 1.5 million possible combinations for a 5 pc party. Do you really think a game designer can write adventures balanced for that?

Of course not. But I can tell you, it is not necessary to balance every single encounter. Players like cakewalks once in a while, as mich as tgey like hard won fights. So in most cases, you are not doing them a favor, if you perfectly balance each encounter. Some players would even say, you rob them of their feeling of character progression, as no matter how strong they are, the enemies will grow with them.
That actually was one of the main criticisms of 4e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That presupposes a level and kind of balance that is not present in 5e

For you... probably. I have played 10 years now, and I have not seen asingle imbalanced character, even the ones who had way better stats and magic items as a standard (array) character.

 

[Minigiant]

It was arguably even easier to make a distinctive character in 3e, but having that character also be effective we another question entirely. Only a few builds were considered viable. Also, your character might not come into bloom for months and months -- not until after you've multiclassed a certain way, taken certain feats, and joined a prestige class.

5e makes it easy to play what you want, you start off doing cool stuff, and even sub-optimal characters still contribute. No surprise that's popular, especially with newer players.

This is why I think 4e Essentials would have done as well or better than 5e in the same time period as one of the goals of "4.5" and 4e as whole was getting character archetypes to do their thing at level 1 and be effective. You could cleave, blast, mass heal, mystic punch, and control a pet at level 1. No waiting for a build to start coming together. No fear of playing a bad PC (as long as you didn't pick vampire).
As you level, you got better and were not waiting to unlock features so much.

4e was probably the only edition that got beastmasters and monks to work like the fantasy. So if 4e Essentials had came out in 2014 and broken the ranger and monk into the hunter (ranged), scout (melee), bestmaster (pet), brawler (DEX/STR), mystic(DEX/WIS), and bender (elemental) by 2017, I could only imagine the high sales.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is why I think 4e Essentials would have done as well or better than 5e in the same time period as one of the goals of "4.5" and 4e as whole was getting character archetypes to do their thing at level 1 and be effective. You could cleave, blast, mass heal, mystic punch, and control a pet at level 1. No waiting for a build to start coming together. No fear of playing a bad PC (as long as you didn't pick vampire).
As you level, you got better and were not waiting to unlock features so much.

4e was probably the only edition that got beastmasters and monks to work like the fantasy. So if 4e Essentials had came out in 2014 and broken the ranger and monk into the hunter (ranged), scout (melee), bestmaster (pet), brawler (DEX/STR), mystic(DEX/WIS), and bender (elemental) by 2017, I could only imagine the high sales.

I don't think essentials would have been more successful than 5e, because even with essentials, there was too much game jargon embedded in the rules. Especially movement rules were clunky in hindsight.

I think if 4e essentials had come out instead of 4e vanilla, we might have never seen 5e, because it was a lot closer to classic dnd and especially for martial characters, a lot less "gamey" (in lack of a better word).

 

[Reynard]

Yes, it is present.

I don't think I am explaining myself well.

All I mean is that one party composition -- let's say, melee heavy with one support caster -- versus another composition-- let's say muti caster blastiness-- are going to experience different difficulty levels from the same encounter -- let's say a bunch of shadows -- based on those compositions, and as such, the GM should keep an eye on it. The adventure designer can't know what your party composition is and so designs using some arbitrary metric with the assumption that the GM will make adjustments as necessary.

I am not sure which part of the above is controversial.