D&D General Mike Mearls sits down with Ben from Questing Beast

[Yaarel]

No I wouldn't be using champion.

So every Fighter is a Battlemaster?

Also, if using feats, that is probably enough "moving parts" to finetune an individual character concept.

 

[Zardnaar]

So every Fighter is a Battlemaster?

Also, if using feats, that is probably enough "moving parts" to finetune an individual character concept.

My homebrew uses feats and talent tree. There's a weapon specialist tree, defender tree, 4E type feats, lots of plagiarism.

Thinking something like 3E fighter on 4E engine.

5.5 champions kinda scary in stress testing espicially level 10.

Also seen ACKs, C&C fighters and 2E fighters (with Fighters Handbook) in action somewhat lately.

 

[Yaarel]

My homebrew uses feats and talent tree. There's a weapon specialist tree, defender tree, 4E type feats, lots of plagiarism.

Thinking something like 3E fighter on 4E engine.

5.5 champions kinda scary in stress testing espicially level 10.

Also seen ACKs, C&C fighters and 2E fighters (with Fighters Handbook) in action somewhat lately.

That seems enough feats to let players modify and specialize.

 

[mamba]

My homebrew tends to end up to complicated.

Gritty 5E, no sub classes and 3.0 or 3.5 HP levels?

Haven't decided on whether there are subclasses yet. I kinda want to have the option but will have to see what the base classes offer and what design space is left. For compatibility they would stay with 5e HP levels

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But it's clear to me that it's a well designed game that open the gates to so many new players.

Am I crazy? Is it anecdotal or others remember this shift too?

I don't think you're crazy.

But as someone who has never believed 5e was an especially well-designed game, I absolutely have noticed that people are (finally) starting to genuinely criticize many of 5e's weaknesses. The first like, 3-4 years of 5e were nearly unbearable as a critic of the edition, because every month or two, we'd get yet another thread just utterly GUSHING about how amazeballs-wonderful-perfect 5e was and how could anyone ever hate it (yes, I literally had someone once tell me that it WASN'T POSSIBLE for people to not like 5e!) etc., etc., etc. literally ad nauseam. Now? You can actually have a discussion about things 5e does poorly, and people will take you seriously. You can actually do things like call out how absolutely awful the 5.0 DMG was, and people won't insist up and down that it's the best DMG ever written (yes, multiple people explicitly said this, some of them on this very forum).

So...no, I don't think you're crazy. A shift really has happened. It's just that the shift is not to people pooping on 5e for no reason whatsoever. It's that we are actually able to honestly critique the game, without rose-colored glasses rejecting all possible criticisms as stupid or invalid or unfair or etc., etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think you're crazy.

But as someone who has never believed 5e was an especially well-designed game, I absolutely have noticed that people are (finally) starting to genuinely criticize many of 5e's weaknesses. The first like, 3-4 years of 5e were nearly unbearable as a critic of the edition, because every month or two, we'd get yet another thread just utterly GUSHING about how amazeballs-wonderful-perfect 5e was and how could anyone ever hate it (yes, I literally had someone once tell me that it WASN'T POSSIBLE for people to not like 5e!) etc., etc., etc. literally ad nauseam. Now? You can actually have a discussion about things 5e does poorly, and people will take you seriously. You can actually do things like call out how absolutely awful the 5.0 DMG was, and people won't insist up and down that it's the best DMG ever written (yes, multiple people explicitly said this, some of them on this very forum).

So...no, I don't think you're crazy. A shift really has happened. It's just that the shift is not to people pooping on 5e for no reason whatsoever. It's that we are actually able to honestly critique the game, without rose-colored glasses rejecting all possible criticisms as stupid or invalid or unfair or etc., etc.

Rosie glow has worn off. Happens every edition it's just a matter of time.

Takes 5-10 years generally for me assuming I like it to begin with.

5.5 is better than 5E generally but 10 years of 2014. 3.5 vs 3.0 similar but 3 years vs 10 (3.5 was more exciting than 5.5).

 

[TiQuinn]

I do like 2e, but as a ruleset I want none of BX / 1e / 2e back. That is the part I do not like about the OSR much, they hew too close to them instead of creating a 2e+ with stuff we learned in the last 45 or so years

I really think there’s a better mousetrap to be built that brings together some aspects of OSR using 2e as its base. Kind of a “what if we tried to improve 2e without going the direction 3e went.”

 

[Yaarel]

I really think there’s a better mousetrap to be built that brings together some aspects of OSR using 2e as its base. Kind of a “what if we tried to improve 2e without going the direction 3e went.”

Obviously, like the diversity of boardgames, there can be a be a diversity of roleplay designs.

If the goal is to reach the widest audience possible, probably it is wisest to use 5e as the starting point. It did and still does represent the emerging consensus of D&D players. For 2014, the ones who filled out the surveys were mostly grognards from earlier editions. Now for 2024 5e is pretty much the only D&D most players have known during their lifetimes, if they started playing around the age of 10.

Even Odyssey seems to use 5e as its chassis. Its levels 1 thru 10 correspond to 5e. Probably, one can pull a monster from the 2024 Monster Manual and play it as-is for an Odyssey campaign, and viceversa. If the Odyssey Magic-User class was a new "prestige class" with only ten levels, I suspect one can play it as-is in a 5e campaign.

5e design is remarkably robust. It can tolerate much modification and still seem to carry on. Tweak it to taste. Each setting can make 5e its own.

 

[TiQuinn]

Obviously, like the diversity of boardgames, there can be a be a diversity of roleplay designs.

If the goal is to reach the widest audience possible, probably it is wisest to use 5e as the starting point. It did and still does represent the emerging consensus of D&D players. For 2014, the ones who filled out the surveys were mostly grognards from earlier editions. Now for 2024 5e is pretty much the only D&D most players have known during their lifetimes, if they started playing around the age of 10.

Even Odyssey seems to use 5e as its chassis. Its levels 1 thru 10 correspond to 5e. Probably, one can pull a monster from the 2024 Monster Manual and play it as-is for an Odyssey campaign, and viceversa. If the Odyssey Magic-User class was a new "prestige class" with only ten levels, I suspect one can play it as-is in a 5e campaign.

5e design is remarkably robust. It can tolerate much modification and still seem to carry on. Tweak it to taste. Each setting can make 5e its own.

I think 5e is for a particular style of heroic D&D game, which is fine. What I want from a 2e style game is a bit more dungeon focused, simpler character options at creation, and more importantly uses magic items for character customization versus feats and class abilities. In my mind, they occupy different styles of game, one that so far I haven’t fully seen an OSR/NSR game really hit, IMO. Nothing against Odyssey, of course.

 

[Yaarel]

I think 5e is for a particular style of heroic D&D game, which is fine. What I want from a 2e style game is a bit more dungeon focused, simpler character options at creation, and more importantly uses magic items for character customization versus feats and class abilities. In my mind, they occupy different styles of game, one that so far I haven’t fully seen an OSR/NSR game really hit, IMO. Nothing against Odyssey, of course.

I have played 1e and understand it. (It is why I care about narrative immersion and worldbuilding so much.) The points that you mention seem already doable within 5e.

More dungeon focused. So purchase adventures that are dungeon crawls.

Simpler character options at creation. Use defaults. Such as, there are only four classes: Artificer, Paladin, Fighter, and Rogue. Every Fighter is a Battlemaster, etcetera.

Magic items for character customization. Create new feats whose abilities narratively represent attunement to a magic item. Either supply the item as part of loot. Or allow the character to know how to create this magic item.

Even creating new feats is a normal part of 5e.


What else is necessary to achieve the feel that your table is looking for?