D&D 5E Sell me on 5th…

[Oofta]

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.

So for fighters:

• strength based vs dex
• single weapon, two-handed, two weapon, ranged, reach
• pole arm master, great weapon master, dual, sharp shooter
• Champion that just gets extra crits, rune knight gets spell-like abilities and enlarge, battle master maneuvers, eldritch knight, etc.
• feats and multi-classing

All of those combinations, not even consider special things from species, backgrounds, possible magic items ... they're all the same? Really? I mean I guess for the most part they use a weapon to attack, except when they don't.

You don't like the game, and that's fine, but the hyperbole is strong with this post.

 

[ECMO3]

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 have been playing since 80 ..... so not quite as long as you ..... and my favorite version is 5E. The worst edition for me is 3E (not counting 4E in this discussion since I did not play it very much).

Given that you like 3E the most implys we do not like the same things. I find 5E more immersive and overall more fun than other editions.

Why I like 5E the best (with specific references/comparisons to other editions).

Flexible character builds: IME 5E offers the most flexibility and VIABLE options for character builds. 3E had more total options available, but due to the feat chains, but for me most 3E PCs were on a railroad and the lack of bounded accuracy meant then needed to keep investing to not fall behind. 5E has a lot more flexibility. In one campaign I multiclassed to Ranger in the middle of it, without planning to, just to pick up some stuff the party was lacking. You can take pretty much any feat and not worry about being completely non-effective because of it. 3E really penalized you for going off -build.

Classes don't have defined roles: While some classes are better than others at certain things , most classes have a variety of play styles. You can play a melee Wizard and be VERY good at it. You can play a skill monkey fighter or a strength-based Rogues. It is not completely wide open (melee Sorcerer or healer Fighter is not really doable) but there is a lot of variety.

Parties don't have defined makeups: In 1E you needed to have a Cleric, a Magic-User, a Fighter and a Rogue in every party, later versions eased this a bit but there were still specific, defined roles you needed to cover. 5E can be played very effectively with any combination of classes. You can play 4 Wizards or 4 Rogues, or 4 Fighters and be totally ok ... becuase of how diverse classes are.

Bounded accuracy: 5E has a skill system similar to 3E (one of the good things about 3E), but it does not require endless investment. In 3E if you started with a high dexterity you would be pretty decent at hiding at 1st level, but you had to keep investing in it or else you quickly became poor at it. In 5E your 18 dexterity gives you a +4 and that means you are still a +4 at 20th level and will be able to hide successfully a pretty good amount of time. Same with AC, your Goblins can still hit your fighters fairly often at 20th level.

Combat: Combat in 5E is awesome for two reasons. First, you can do just about anything you want. This can create some stress for DMs, because there obviously are not rules for "everything" but it is so flexibile. Additionally the standard actions are streamlined. It is closes to 2E I think in how it works. 1E was really complicated with declarations, and then sequences and then different melee mechanics if you were fighting monsters vs NPCs. 3E made this very regimented, less complicated but still overly rules-oriented and you really had a budget that you had to adhere to or you would really get behind. 5E the basic things you do are simpler, but the rules allow for a lot more things.


Races Overview:
There are far too many races for me to list. If it was a race in a previous edition it is available though. Esoteric (and powerful) options in 5E include Goblins, Shaddar-Kai, Eladrin, Damphir and Hexblood.

Goblin is not so esoteric but is really powerful. Shaddar Kai and Eladrin let you teleport around the battlefield getting damage resistance (Shaddar Kai) or frigtening/charming people (Eladrin). Hexblood is a Hagspawn.


Classes:
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, Artificer

There are a ton of subclasses with these. You can't really give an overview because subclasses really affect how a class plays. You can build a caster Ranger for example who almost never attacks at medium/high level and be pretty darn effective.

 

[Parmandur]

melee Sorcerer...is not really doable

On the contrary, this can be done: I played a Mountain Dwarf Wild Mage who was quite cromulent at melee in a pinch

 

[ECMO3]

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.

I really disagree with this in 5E.

I have a Bladesinger I played to 20th level and False Life was the most common spell she cast with a slot of 6+ level. I played a Ranger to 16th level and after 8th level she rarely used the attack action in combat at all.

I think this is true for Barbarians and maybe Druids and Paladins but other classes can play completely different based on subclass, abilities, race and chosen feats.

I do agree that some subclasses are weak and some classes allow more variation than others but it is patently false to say things are mechanically the same regardless of subclasses.

 

[ECMO3]

On the contrary, this can be done: I played a Mountain Dwarf Wild Mage who was quite cromulent at melee in a pinch

I stand corrected. I haven't been able to figure this out ... but that is probably my shortcoming.

 

[Parmandur]

I stand corrected. I haven't been able to figure this out ... but that is probably my shortcoming.

I went for it because it was meant to be a joke campaign...but then all our joke concepts just worked?

The big thing I did was only select spells that lacked somatic components...it went fine.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So for fighters:

• strength based vs dex
• single weapon, two-handed, two weapon, ranged, reach
• pole arm master, great weapon master, dual, sharp shooter
• Champion that just gets extra crits, rune knight gets spell-like abilities and enlarge, battle master maneuvers, eldritch knight, etc.
• feats and multi-classing

All of those combinations, not even consider special things from species, backgrounds, possible magic items ... they're all the same? Really? I mean I guess for the most part they use a weapon to attack, except when they don't.

You don't like the game, and that's fine, but the hyperbole is strong with this post.

Bringing in an awful lot of things that have nothing to do with class here. Feats? Multiclassing? Magic items? Really? All of those are a completely separate question (and most of them have rather little story as well--seriously, what's the "story" behind PAM beyond "I use polearms"???). Str/Dex is decided mostly by weapon, not a choice itself. Single/ranged can be Dex. Everything else must be Str.

The hyperbole is strong with your post as well. 5e, as an explicit and intentional effort, chooses to go for high-abstraction character options. That was literally the whole point of the "less is more" approach: provide options which are generic to many different things, and thus cover more ground with less space, at the price of less focus and specificity. And, as I said, Custom Lineage is the culmination of that effort. It covers all possible races by being maximally abstracted. It is infinitely general, infinitely applicable, precisely because it has no specificity.

I really disagree with this in 5E.

I have a Bladesinger I played to 20th level and False Life was the most common spell she cast with a slot of 6+ level. I played a Ranger to 16th level and after 8th level she rarely used the attack action in combat at all.

I think this is true for Barbarians and maybe Druids and Paladins but other classes can play completely different based on subclass, abilities, race and chosen feats.

I do agree that some subclasses are weak and some classes allow more variation than others but it is patently false to say things are mechanically the same regardless of subclasses.

....those are different classes being compared to each other. I specifically said "Once you pick a subclass of Fighter" because I meant it. Comparing a Bladesinger (a Wizard) to a Ranger of any sort, sure, there will be differences there--I'd bloody well hope there would be. Bladesinger is probably the only Wizard that will stick out mechanically from other Wizards...mostly because it's pretty well known for being both extremely powerful and actively trying to do something Wizards don't do (fighting in melee.) And, believe it or not, there's an Artificer subclass that would work to tell pretty much exactly the same story, Armorer--an intelligent mage whose magical acumen is focused on physical combat. Arguably two, though the second is a pet class and thus fits a slightly different archetype.

 

[Oofta]

Bringing in an awful lot of things that have nothing to do with class here. Feats? Multiclassing? Magic items? Really? All of those are a completely separate question (and most of them have rather little story as well--seriously, what's the "story" behind PAM beyond "I use polearms"???). Str/Dex is decided mostly by weapon, not a choice itself. Single/ranged can be Dex. Everything else must be Str.

The hyperbole is strong with your post as well. 5e, as an explicit and intentional effort, chooses to go for high-abstraction character options. That was literally the whole point of the "less is more" approach: provide options which are generic to many different things, and thus cover more ground with less space, at the price of less focus and specificity. And, as I said, Custom Lineage is the culmination of that effort. It covers all possible races by being maximally abstracted. It is infinitely general, infinitely applicable, precisely because it has no specificity.


....those are different classes being compared to each other. I specifically said "Once you pick a subclass of Fighter" because I meant it. Comparing a Bladesinger (a Wizard) to a Ranger of any sort, sure, there will be differences there--I'd bloody well hope there would be. Bladesinger is probably the only Wizard that will stick out mechanically from other Wizards...mostly because it's pretty well known for being both extremely powerful and actively trying to do something Wizards don't do (fighting in melee.) And, believe it or not, there's an Artificer subclass that would work to tell pretty much exactly the same story, Armorer--an intelligent mage whose magical acumen is focused on physical combat. Arguably two, though the second is a pet class and thus fits a slightly different archetype.

I look at the entire system and what people can actually do. I don't artificially constrain things to make a point. The combination of race, class, subclass, fighting styles, dex vs strength, all make a difference in what the PC feels like. A class not being tightly coupled with a specific trope which means there can be some overlap, is a strength not a weakness.

 

[ECMO3]

....those are different classes being compared to each other. I specifically said "Once you pick a subclass of Fighter" because I meant it. Comparing a Bladesinger (a Wizard) to a Ranger of any sort, sure, there will be differences there--I'd bloody well hope there would be. Bladesinger is probably the only Wizard that will stick out mechanically from other Wizards...mostly because it's pretty well known for being both extremely powerful and actively trying to do something Wizards don't do (fighting in melee.) And, believe it or not, there's an Artificer subclass that would work to tell pretty much exactly the same story, Armorer--an intelligent mage whose magical acumen is focused on physical combat. Arguably two, though the second is a pet class and thus fits a slightly different archetype.

So I am not sure I understand your point.

The Ranger I cited was A LOT different than other "standard" Rangers. The Bladesinger was A LOT different than other "standard" Wizards. I wasn't really comparing those two, but if I did from levels 8-16, the Ranger was using a lot more spell slots for Offense (mostly Cause Fear or Summon Fey) than the Wizard was. The Ranger was more of a caster, the Wizard was more of a Martial.

Bladesinger is the most extreme example, but not the only one. My Goblin Enchantment Wizard is in melee range a lot and is not played much like a standard Wizard either. She leans a lot on Nimble Escape to do this, but the point is there is a wide variation of play styles, she makes use of nimble escape and how it compliments Hypnotic Gaze and Booming Blade.

I've played a couple Artificers and they did not hold a candle to the Bladesinger in melee, especially at high level. One of them died though, so that may influence or bias my opinion. What the Bladesinger has that an Artificer doesn't is temp hit points and at high level Song of Defense. Artificer gets False Life, but they lack the high level slots to use it as effectively as a Bladesinger. Armorer Artificer also lacks the Shield spell. IME Artificers are comparable in tier 1 and tier 2 but don't keep up after that.

 

[Older Beholder]

After more than 45 years in the hobby, I’ve played most of the stereotypical race/class combos from pre-2Ed that lingered on even afterwards. So when I sit down at a gaming table to start a new D&D campaign, I have those character concepts ready to go and can generally create one pretty quickly- I’ve even played some in 3.5 while I was still generating the character (I was late for the first session). But I’d much rather try something askance from the same old same old.

So being able to create and play things like a full caster in heavy armor, a “Paladin” with arcane spells, or a 2-headed bipedal fey dog-man engages my creativity at a different level. I invest more in the PC.

I‘m not sure that there‘s the range of options that were available in 2E and 3E by the end of their runs.
But there are less restrictions than in those previous editions, so if you’re preference is for a system flexible enough to match your imagination I think 5E should suit your needs.

There are multiple ways to build whatever you want to play.
Just say for example you want a spell casting rogue…

You can multiclass,
or you can take a subclass like Arcane Trickster
or you could go with a criminal background on a wizard
or you could play a rogue with a species that gets spellcasting, or take a feat that gives you spells
Etc, etc…

If you do end up trying 5E, let us know what character you choose and how it goes.