D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Oofta]

I think 4e Essentials as a standalone edition would have sold better than 5e in 2014 as it was stripped down but focused on archetypes, have a lot more ease introducing modern fantasy character types that work, and would have a DMG that was 10 times better.

4e was the only edition where the barbarian, monk, ranger, sorcerer, and warlock worked and we're good. Imagine if you simplified that without 4e's drama. Money printer.

As much as I think essentials should have been part of the initial release, the approach of 4e was off-putting when it came to certain aspects of D&D that I enjoyed most.

There's no such thing as a perfect game, I just wouldn't want to play 4E again. [Deleted all the reasons I don't think 4e would have ever been as big as 5. No point. ]

As far as the rest, plenty of people I play with have a lot of fun with the classes you list.

You can't please everyone, but it's not like 5E is some flash in the pan. You don’t get double digit growth for nearly a decade with a bad product.

 

[Minigiant]

Not for us. Theater of mind nearly impossible among a number of other issues that had us leave it behind. As some folks have posted, you would have a hard time getting old timers, newcomers, causals, and hard core all at the same table for that game.

Essentials works with TOM.

Essentials is 4e with most of the glut cut.

The slayer is just attack, attack harder, gain +5 to saves and AC, and gain 5 THP for the first 10 levels.

Essentials is easier to run in your head than 5e for most of the classes, monster, and obstacles as it dumbs down 4e and guts choices that don't match archetypes.

 

[Minigiant]

As much as I think essentials should have been part of the initial release, the approach of 4e was off-putting when it came to certain aspects of D&D that I enjoyed most.

There's no such thing as a perfect game, I just wouldn't want to play 4E again. [Deleted all the reasons I don't think 4e would have ever been as big as 5. No point. ]

As far as the rest, plenty of people I play with have a lot of fun with the classes you list.

You can't please everyone, but it's not like 5E is some flash in the pan. You don’t get double digit growth for nearly a decade with a bad product.

4e isn't 4e Essentials.

4e essentials is basically 5e with a 4e engine and MUCH better MM and DMG.

 

[payn]

Essentials works with TOM.

Essentials is 4e with most of the glut cut.

The slayer is just attack, attack harder, gain +5 to saves and AC, and gain 5 THP for the first 10 levels.

Essentials is easier to run in your head than 5e for most of the classes, monster, and obstacles as it dumbs down 4e and guts choices that don't match archetypes.

We all think this of our fav editions, truth is past ones lacked the mass appeal that 5E has. That gives 5E obvious weaknesses, but more noticeable to the hardcore. Turns out they are not the best to cater to specifically.

 

[Oofta]

4e isn't 4e Essentials.

4e essentials is basically 5e with a 4e engine and MUCH better MM and DMG.

I suspect the biggest changes for the anniversary edition will be reformatting and revising the MM and DMG in such a way that core gameplay has primarily cosmetic changes.

We'll see.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I suspect the biggest changes for the anniversary edition will be reformatting and revising the MM and DMG in such a way that core gameplay has primarily cosmetic changes.

We'll see.

I hope that to be true! I want to be able to add things here or there without dumping some still good condition books.

 

[Parmandur]

I was about 12 then and I figured it out, yeah. But I had friends who didn't. My now-wife tells me how she wanted to play as a kid but had trouble wrapping her mind around it (and now she's a doctor with an Ivy League degree).

Worse, I knew people who were excited about playing a mighty wizard, went though a session where they cast no spells then died the first time they were touched, then quit and never came back. Hard to blame them, honestly. That isn't fun.

People are looking at Basic with rose-colored lenses. Some of those people weren't even alive then, oddly enough. I was, so let me tell you: 5e is vastly friendlier to new players. VASTLY.

Oh, I thinkn5E is better suited, but I'd bet on. Asic doing better than 3.x or 4E in the streaming age.f

 

[Warpiglet-7]

We all think this of our fav editions, truth is past ones lacked the mass appeal that 5E has. That gives 5E obvious weaknesses, but more noticeable to the hardcore. Turns out they are not the best to cater to specifically.

Familiarity is key. I was sort of like huh? When confronted with bonus actions you don’t automatically get.

Now of course it’s like, yeah, duh simple. But I do find I have to remind people about reactions etc too when new but people grok quick

 

[Parmandur]

I never said it was pure luck.

I'm only saying that it's more luck than quality, and that many of 5e's issues are (as others have said) back-loaded, as has been the case for past editions, like 3e. As a result, you have a game that gets people on board fast, gets them committed, and only after that begins to be not all it's cracked up to be. But because network effects are a thing and switching systems is a pain and often an expense (and scary if you've never played any other system), there's a lot of resistance that has to be overcome before someone would consider playing something else.

If 5e were in fact "perfect" (or even remotely close to "perfect") it would not have induced the creation of things like Level Up, which has been in the works for years now. Yes, being relatively familiar and lower engagement made it somewhat easier to get into. (People often underestimate just how complex even 5e is to people with zero RPG experience, where you have to teach them even the concept of hit points or attack rolls.) But the real most important factors were the enormous amounts of free advertising, overall outreach, old players being enthusiastic proselytizers, etc. In other words, 5e was a decent but not perfect game for its context, and could have done even better than it did, and that context was overwhelmingly favorable to it.

I am 100% confident we will see changes in 2024 that the ~20% of fans who were around before 5e launched will be at best divided over, and at worst united against, in order to adapt 5e to the 80% who are newcomers with none of the preconceptions, prejudices, or received wisdom. I cannot with any confidence predict exactly what those changes will be, nor whether they will be changes I personally like. But I am completely certain such changes will occur, specifically because 5e is not and never was even remotely close to perfect, neither in general nor in the specific context of 2014.

I mean, of course we will, and we have seen most of them already. The 2024 revisions have been tested and implemented piece by piece for a couple of years now, before they do the major core consolidation.

 

[Parmandur]

Not for us. Theater of mind nearly impossible among a number of other issues that had us leave it behind. As some folks have posted, you would have a hard time getting old timers, newcomers, causals, and hard core all at the same table for that game.

Yeah, this matches my experience...and I went into 4E extremely positive and excited with the enthusiasm of youth, so it's not just drama or being crusty and old. 4E simply didn't function for many people's playstyle.