D&D 5E (2014) So 5E is the Successor to AD&D 2nd Edition? How and How Not?

[Paul Farquhar]

If 4 of 5 players seek attention, then the DM or adventure designer need to shift the game so each of the 4 share the spotlight.

I don't know about you, but the vast majority of my game isn't combat, and even when it is, players whose turn it isn't are busy shouting advice, encouragement or witticisms. Being "in the spotlight" isn't about who does the most damage.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Mechanically, I believe that 5E is 3E stripped to the bone. It has all/most of the mechanical innovations of 3E, but with fewer options that are better balanced.

I do wish 5E was built in a way that allowed greater variety, but every time the designers attempt to open that door, the community shuts it. For example, having all characters gain subclass features at the same level (tested early in the development cycle for 5.5E) would have opened up a lot of design space. There's been a lot of great ideas left on the cutting room floor...

Outside of mechanics, 5E is its own thing. It's definitely shaped by the product plan, which offers up campaigns that are meant to be distinctly different from each other 1-2 times per year.

Despite a plethora of quibbles, it's a great game, my favorite edition of D&D by a wide margin.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't know about you, but the vast majority of my game isn't combat, and even when it is, players whose turn it isn't are busy shouting advice, encouragement or witticisms. Being "in the spotlight" isn't about who does the most damage.

It isn't just combat.

A spellcasting system where a caster cast see that there will be few to no combat then dump all their spell slots into exploration and social magic skews to casters is just like 3e casters who will memorize 75% non-combat spells when in towns and cities.

Lord help you if you allow unofficial sourcebooks with niche non-combat spells.

It's straight outta 3e.

And DMs tend to use gotchas or magic items to mitigate this if they stray outside of 5e's base assumptions.

 

[Desdichado]

People keep saying this.

And will continue to do so, because people who have played lots of systems recognize the 5e is most like a slightly streamlined 3e than it is just about anything else you could care to compare it to.

Your characterization of 3e is also flawed from the start. 3e had two mottos. And while "back to the dungeon" had little impact on how the game is perceived, "tools not rules" is pretty much the opposite of what your describe.

Granted, playstyles are in many ways less mutable over time than the system, so that any given group will tend to play every system with more or less the same approach that's already their group culture. But that just makes how similar 3e and 5e are even more obvious.

 

[Azzy]

To me, 5e is what 3e should have been. So, I guess I can see 5e as 2e's successor.

 

[Gorg]

I feel 5E is a descendent of 1E because that was my first role-playing game. It scratches much of the nostalgia. Then again there were many things about 1E I didn't like and I feel 5E generally does a better job at those.

Imo, it is a descendant of all of them- B/X and BECMI included. Or, more aptly, and evolution of them.

We felt like 3e was a better representation of how we ACTUALLY played the game, vs TSR's RAW version- with a bunch of extras thrown in. Like the unified D20 system.

This included, but isn't limited to, dropping odd, arbitrary "balancing" rules- like racial class/level limitations, in favor of giving humans their own advantages. ( YES! You can- and here is how!, rather than NO!!! because reasons) And dropping all the number crunchy wargamey stuff nobody I knew used. The general harshness of save or die's, or level/ability drains on the turn of a single roll, etc.

since then, it further evolved into 5th edition, adding new things, streamlining others.

A few things I love about 5E: cantrips as at will spells. Interesting focus options baked right in- ie subclasses. (if not always the implimentation of them, lol). What they did with Barbarians, Paladins, Wizards, and Clerics. Sorcerors are cool, too- I just am kinda meh with the general flavor options.

And you absolutely can play it the way we used to.

like any other edition, it isn't perfect, but it sure is fun to play! I just wish they'd included better DM tools for converting existing stuff to 5E- or adding your own. Determining CR, I'm looking at YOU. I think 3/3.5 was a sweet spot in that regard.

 

[ECMO3]

AD&D 2nd edition is at my nostalgic core for TTRPGs. It was my first edition. It was the one game that I felt got "yanked out" from me when my players demanded we upgrade to a very different 3rd edition. It was the home of my longest and most "meaningful" campaign (in case you're wondering, it served as the catharsis as my players and I navigated entering adulthood and the death of a friend) - in short, it was our "Stand By Me" experience. I am still best friends with the players from that group 25+ years later ... even though we have moved hours apart.

So when I say I loved 2nd Edition AD&D and the nostalgia of it, I really mean that.

In Chris Perkin's recent interview with Stan!, he claimed that 5e was the descendent of 2nd edition. As I bemoan on online forums that there isn't a good modernized update of 2nd edition (as Old School Essentials does for B/X), people say "you've got 5e - that's the 2nd edition retroclone." However, 5e has been a struggle for me and it feels very different from 2e.

Here's a list of differences between 5e and 2e that I think keep 5e from delivering on 2e feel...
Overnight full heal.
Easy access to healing magic (ESPECIALLY Healing Word).
No stat requirements to qualify for "rare" classes (Bard, Druid, Paladin, etc.).
Bonus actions.
HP bloat.
Bounded accuracy.
Monster damage resistances and spell resistances being inconsequential.
Monster special attacks not being threatening (Mummy Rot, Lycanthropy, etc.)
No specialty priests or specialist wizards.

Some differences, such as positive AC I think are good changes and don't really detract from the feel anyway.

What do you think? Do you think 5e feels like 2nd edition? Do you see any other differences? What are the similarities?

Personally I think AD&D 1E was better than 2nd edition. I do think 5E is the best of all the editions and if I had to rank them it would be:

1. 5E
2. AD&D 1E
3. AD&D 2E
4. BX
5. 3E
6-98: Any other RPG or D&D clone
99. 4E

I think 5E has the feel of 1E in a lot of ways but with better, easier to understand rules. I also think while "bounded accuracy" did not exist as a term in 1E/2E it was there in play IMO. A Kobold lair could wipe out a party of 15th level players in 1E if things went sideways. 3E is what brought about the ladder you had to stay on to be competitive and what made monsters like Kobolds essentially useless against high level characters.

I get what you are saying about the other stuff - healing, healing word, mummy rot, Wights/Wraiths/Vampires .... and I do agree that makes play a lot different than 1E or 2E. 1E and 2E were just more dangerous and difficult but the feel is largely the same. I think that caters to a new audience that wants an easier time. But in terms of feel I do think 5E is closer to those two than to other editions or than they are to other editions.

 

[Zardnaar]

Personally I think AD&D 1E was better than 2nd edition. I do think 5E is the best of all the editions and if I had to rank them it would be:

1. 5E
2. AD&D 1E
3. AD&D 2E
4. BX
5. 3E
6-98: Any other RPG or D&D clone
99. 4E

I think 5E has the feel of 1E in a lot of ways but with better, easier to understand rules. I also think while "bounded accuracy" did not exist as a term in 1E/2E it was there in play IMO. A Kobold lair could wipe out a party of 15th level players in 1E if things went sideways. 3E is what brought about the ladder you had to stay on to be competitive and what made monsters like Kobolds essentially useless against high level characters.

I get what you are saying about the other stuff - healing, healing word, mummy rot, Wights/Wraiths/Vampires .... and I do agree that makes play a lot different than 1E or 2E. 1E and 2E were just more dangerous and difficult but the feel is largely the same. I think that caters to a new audience that wants an easier time. But in terms of feel I do think 5E is closer to those two than to other editions or than they are to other editions.

1E had better vibes. 2E was cleaned up a bit to much.

Try playing either with 2026 players. 2Es a lot better to learn.

I like 2E personally but B/X is really good still AD&D has aged badly.

 

[Jahydin]

5E is the successor to Basic D&D. AD&D was all about crafting intricate mechanics to really nail down how the game world should function, while Basic relied on the DM's "squishy computer" to handle most of that. 5E, to me, was a return to that line of thinking - with the caveat more Advanced rules would be added later on for those who wanted them.

 

[Zardnaar]

5E is the successor to Basic D&D. AD&D was all about crafting intricate mechanics to really nail down how the game world should function, while Basic relied on the DM's "squishy computer" to handle most of that. 5E, to me, was a return to that line of thinking - with the caveat more Advanced rules would be added later on for those who wanted them.

Its a merging of all them tbh. Because e its own thing.

B/X, 3E and 4E main inspirations imho. Not much AD&D except 2E optional stuff imho.