D&D 5E Sell me on 5th…

[Parmandur]

Side question about

Thanks. That was helpful.

Q: in 2Ed & 3.X, Minotaurs were size L, so did (and received) extra damage based on size. 4Ed did away with that. How does 5Ed handle PC species of large size, if any?

That is actually my biggest beef with the system: it doesn't. All official PC options are Small or Medium. So playable Centaurs and Minotaurs are Medium, as are Firvolg or Goliaths. Fairies from Mordenkainen's are Small with an innate Enlarge/Reduce ability to be Tiny or Medium for a time, and latter iterations of Goliaths can Hulk-out to Laarge briefly.

 

[billd91]

That is actually my biggest beef with the system: it doesn't. All official PC options are Small or Medium. So playable Centaurs and Minotaurs are Medium, as are Firvolg or Goliaths. Fairies from Mordenkainen's are Small with an innate Enlarge/Reduce ability to be Tiny or Medium for a time, and latter iterations of Goliaths can Hulk-out to Laarge briefly.

Yeah, larger sized PCs is something 5e is really staying away from. My guess is 3e's methods of dealing with larger sizes, while based on some interesting simulative-oriented design involving stat modification, damage increases, and reach, really got out of hand from a game balancing perspective and they want to avoid repeating it.

 

[Parmandur]

Larger sized PCs is something 5e is really staying away from. My guess is 3e's methods of dealing with larger sizes, while based on some interesting simulative-oriented design involving stat modification, damage increases, and reach, really got out of hand from a game balancing perspective and they want to avoid repeating it.

Oh, the system can handle it juat fine, but with headaches the designers decided early on they don't want to deal with, unfortunately. Karl David Brown, who used to post here, has reverse engineered the system WitC uses to design Species, and has actually put out perfectly viable and balanced Large options and how to use them:

"The half-ogre was one of the first optional races for D&D, first described in print by Gary Gygax himself!"

"Ogres and half-ogres of the worlds of D&D are diverse and sometimes surprisingly civilized. This booklet provides five new player character race options: the ogre-blood, half ogre, ogrillion, wild ogre, and civil ogre. All these races are designed for balance with a proven mathematical system and play tested by a 30+ year veteran DM. Each is given a full write up like the races in the Player’s Handbook. These write-ups draw on lore from the entire history of D&D."

"Also in this book are ogre Flaws and Bonds, a selection of Large sized equipment, a new feat for ogres, rules for Large player characters, design notes, the history of ogre and half-ogre races in D&D, and stats for gigantic pelicans!"

Half-ogre & Ogre PC Races - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

Half-ogre & Ogre PC Races - The half-ogre was one of the first optional races for D&D, first described in print by Gary Gygax himself! Ogres and

www.dmsguild.com

His overall breakdown of the system underlying Species options is fascinating, and has had tremendous predictive power since he first started putting it out like 6/7 years ago:

Race Design for D&D 5th Edition Creating New PC Species - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

Race Design for D&D 5th Edition Creating New PC Species - The second edition of my Copper Best Seller. Revised and updated. WOTC’s PC ‘races’ for 5th edition fall short of

www.dmsguild.com

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Poppycock

This is telling me that the dozens of characters and stories at my tables over the past decade have been exactly the same as each other and everyone else's .

Complete and utter crap

I mean, I was pretty clearly speaking mechanically. Every Wizard is going to be pretty much the same, mechanically. Once you pick a subclass of, say, Fighter? Things will be pretty much the same, mechanically. There are ten Fighter subclasses (and some of them...are really pretty bad. Like Banneret.)

You can attach whatever story to that you want. Many Wizards could just as easily be played as Artificers, or Bards/Sorcerers with good Intelligence, etc. Hence, mechanically, there's only a handful of stories. You've always been able to invent whatever story you want that has zero impact on mechanics. Nothing about that has changed.

 

[Quickleaf]

@Dannyalcatraz Here's a list of the current races/subclasses in core 5e. I'm not sure I'm the right one to convince you. I suspect you'd have a blast sticking with 3e or Pathfinder, but since you're weighing the field and no one posted anything like this that I could see upthread thought it might help your decision-making.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@Dannyalcatraz Here's a list of the current races/subclasses in core 5e. I'm not sure I'm the right one to convince you. I suspect you'd have a blast sticking with 3e or Pathfinder, but since you're weighing the field and no one posted anything like this that I could see upthread thought it might help your decision-making.

I did list the classes above.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I’ve been playing since ‘77, and I’ve gotten to try most of the D&D stereotypes across the various editions. My fave so far has been 3.X, because of the flexibility.

As 3.5Ed ran its course, I started playing odder and odder characters, built using unusual classes & races. I haven’t gotten to play everything I wanted in that edition, and still design PCs with that ruleset. As time passed the more exotic they got.

I didn’t like 4Ed as much, but- again- had more PC concepts on paper than I ever got to play. I really liked that version of the Warlock, and some of the other options appealed to me on their own merits, inspiring different character concepts from 3.X.

But what I saw from the 5Ed playtest reports kinda left me cold. And many of the subsequent threads here over the years haven’t much moved me. However, a close friend is thinking about getting into 5Ed, and I’m wondering if I’m not giving the system a fair shake.

So, I’m looking for an overview of the races & classes available for PCs, to see if any of my unplayed characters would be supported by the latest edition, or if there are new esoteric options that might inspire me to create new heroes.

Wat’cha got?

I've been playing almost as long as you (summer of 1979) and I'd say this version does a good job of enabling a lot of that old school feel without feeling as mechanistic as 4E and even 3E could feel, while benefiting from modern design. Characters aren't as fragile as they were in the TSR era but character building is much more sane and rational than it was under 3E, which felt like an arms race towards the end.

It is much more on the rulings rather than rules side of design than previous WotC D&D systems are; whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to you. (I like it, myself. I didn't like the idea that I had to find the official answer for every adjudication in some 3E book or other.)

5E is not the system I would choose for gritty dungeon crawls, as characters are too robust and everyone but humans and halflings can see in the dark (which it's super-weird that WotC hasn't rolled back in the 2024 books), but for heroic adventure, it's pretty great.

If you are not 100% sold on WotC's take on lore or them as a corporate entity, I would also take a look at Kobold Press' Tales of the Valiant, which is their fork of the system, using the Creative Commons versions of the rules. Monsters hit a bit harder, some of the quirks of WotC's version of 5E are smoothed out and it's got its own lore and flavor while still being very broadly compatible with general fantasy adventures, just with different minor details than the WotC take.

If you can find it, pick up the original Starter Set (the Lost Mines of Phandelver), which is often incredibly cheap (under $15, sometimes much less). It lays out the modern rules well and has, IMO, the best starter adventure the game has ever seen. That box sold me on 5E after several years of running Castles & Crusades during the 4E and early 5E era.

 

[Quickleaf]

I did list the classes above.

Ah, I stand corrected, sorry EzekielRaiden!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

@Dannyalcatraz, if you like the heavier mechanics of 3E, I think WotC default 5E might be too light for you. If your group isn't interested in a version of Pathfinder, you might want to sweet talk them and see if they'd be open to Level Up, which adds extra mechanical crunch on top of 5E, while leaving the core of the game fundamentally the same. It's possible to just do it on the player side, with DM permission, as well.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, I was pretty clearly speaking mechanically. Every Wizard is going to be pretty much the same, mechanically. Once you pick a subclass of, say, Fighter? Things will be pretty much the same, mechanically. There are ten Fighter subclasses (and some of them...are really pretty bad. Like Banneret.)

You can attach whatever story to that you want. Many Wizards could just as easily be played as Artificers, or Bards/Sorcerers with good Intelligence, etc. Hence, mechanically, there's only a handful of stories. You've always been able to invent whatever story you want that has zero impact on mechanics. Nothing about that has changed.

Mechanics are not a story, they are just tools.