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

[Desdichado]

I think 3e is directly linked to 2e as both spiritual and literal successor. We can see what they wanted to do with the 2e Player's Options books. With the exception of ascending AC (which they wanted in 2e anyway but decided being backwards compatible was more important), you can see 3e in those PO books. PO was the groundwork for more tactical combat, feats, and PC customization we saw really take off in 3e.

No, 3e launched with the "back to the dungeon" vibe. It was clearly a reaction against 2e, or at least against the popular perception of 2e, by appealing to a more 1e like spiritual vibe. It later evolved into its own thing, but 3e was, especially in it's new, core-books only state, leaning much more into a 1e experience, although mechanics flexible enough to accommodate a 2e-like experience for those who wanted it. Later on, 3e was it's own experience unlike either, and that's what 5e was; a stripped down and streamlined reworking of the 3e experience, more or less, and if they picked up anything from 4e, they were very quiet about it, because it was clearly a reaction against 4e in the same way that 3e was a reaction against 2e. Maybe 5e was a successor of sorts of 2e in the sense that it focused more on the storytelling aspect that was all the rage in the 90s, but otherwise, I don't see it as very 2e like at all.

 

[Desdichado]

Best part of BECMI is tge Rules Cyclopedia. 20 levels would improve that book along with stretched demo human level limits.

Downside of B/X is no RC.

36 levels doesnt really work hell 20 is marginal but what people expect.

Best part of BECMI was the Larry Elmore cover art. I don't mind the change in focus of the text. I think B/X and its expected level spread was fine, though. Would have been nice if they'd been omnibused into a single volume, but that's the only thing that BECMI does that beats B/X. And, like I said, arguably the cover art. I know Erol Otus is popular, and deservedly so, but the Larry Elmore cover art is some of the most iconic D&D art ever created.

 

[Zardnaar]

Best part of BECMI was the Larry Elmore cover art. I don't mind the change in focus of the text. I think B/X and its expected level spread was fine, though. Would have been nice if they'd been omnibused into a single volume, but that's the only thing that BECMI does that beats B/X. And, like I said, arguably the cover art. I know Erol Otus is popular, and deservedly so, but the Larry Elmore cover art is some of the most iconic D&D art ever created.

Erols an aquired taste but yeah Elmore's very iconic.
Easley as well. His government art was q5 off years iirc up . Pkayers option at least.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, 3e launched with the "back to the dungeon" vibe. It was clearly a reaction against 2e, or at least against the popular perception of 2e, by appealing to a more 1e like spiritual vibe.

I don't think this is true. Based on the interviews I've read and the questions I directly asked myself over the years to people like Skip, the original team of Skip Williams, Monte Cook, and Rich Baker were brought in because they all had differing levels of what they wanted in the game, and Peter and Bill thought having a varied team would result in a great game what wasn't harmed by an echo chamber of designers. It wasn't a reaction against 2e at all, but a more generic new approach because WotC just bought the company. In fact, the original intent was just to make minor rules changes and clarity issues from 2e. Monte was actually surprised at how many of his new ideas were embraced and integrated. Not because they were meant to go against 2e, but because people thought they were a good idea. Not Skip, Monte, Rich, Jonathan Tweet, or Bill Slavicsek have ever told me 3e was a reaction against 2e, and I'm not aware of them telling anyone else that. Rather it seems 3e's big changes away from 2e had to do with people liking Monte's during the design process ideas and not as an active choice to be anti-2e.

The only move WotC thought about that was against 2e was to limit how many books were produced.

 

[Scribe]

Maybe 2E could be that sweet spot?

I believe that's been recommended more than once.

I'm finding myself missing "D&D" and it's 50+ years of history: classes, spells, monsters, magic items, lore, ancestries, etc.

I'm feeling a bit of this myself lately.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think this is true. Based on the interviews I've read and the questions I directly asked myself over the years to people like Skip, the original team of Skip Williams, Monte Cook, and Rich Baker were brought in because they all had differing levels of what they wanted in the game, and Peter and Bill thought having a varied team would result in a great game what wasn't harmed by an echo chamber of designers. It wasn't a reaction against 2e at all, but a more generic new approach because WotC just bought the company. In fact, the original intent was just to make minor rules changes and clarity issues from 2e. Monte was actually surprised at how many of his new ideas were embraced and integrated. Not because they were meant to go against 2e, but because people thought they were a good idea. Not Skip, Monte, Rich, Jonathan Tweet, or Bill Slavicsek have ever told me 3e was a reaction against 2e, and I'm not aware of them telling anyone else that. Rather it seems 3e's big changes away from 2e had to do with people liking Monte's during the design process ideas and not as an active choice to be anti-2e.

The only move WotC thought about that was against 2e was to limit how many books were produced.

Way 3E was advertised was a definite throwback to 1E.

Back to the dungeon, assassins back, barbarians back, Monks back.

It was also the first D&D aimed at adults imho.

Basic line was aimed at kid's, 2E cleaned up 1E and 1E and OD&D were aimed at teenage 70s' and 80s edgelord equivalent.

3E was also a bit "edgier" than 2E. 2E was launched in optimistic 80s, 3E came after nihilistic 90s. Grunge was over but nu metal and Stone Cold Steve Austin was a thing along with rising gritty shows (SVU, CSI, Sopranos etc).

4E went back to cartoon type cover art, 5.0 was arguably aimed at adults as well. 5.5 sort of like 2E and it was sanitized.

 

[billd91]

I don't think this is true.

Well, "Back to the Dungeon" was a marketing tag line that had to signify something. But I don't think it was a reaction against 2e, per se, as much as refocusing the vibe back on dungeon adventuring rather than the proliferation of setting-based materials that were a bit of a glut in the 2e era and de-emphasized dungeon crawling. More of a "back to basics" approach, like if Bob Dylan did an all acoustic set (which apparently he is doing as the first set in his current tour).

 

[Jahydin]

I don't want the bloat of 5.5, Level Up, Pathfinder, 3rd edition, or 4E. Maybe 2E could be that sweet spot?

What? With so many well designed OSR systems out there!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

BECMI? No, I don't see much of Best Edition in 5e either.

Is BECMI the edition where, if you name it, you summon forth dread Editionwarthulu?

 

[Retreater]

What? With so many well designed OSR systems out there!

The other side of the token is that I want more than a B/X derivative that has like a single chart for levels 1-10 with a maybe you get a +1 to hit or +2 HP. Shadowdark, OSE, etc., are too lean.

So I want thieves that can get more backstab damage and increasing abilities. I want druids who can get poison immunity and the ability to shapechange. I want fighters with more attacks. I want vorpal swords and horns of blasting. But I don't want bonus actions, battle dominance dice, pages of combat maneuvers, full heal-up on resting, etc.

Something like a Castles and Crusades with better editing and no confusing SIEGE engine. A DCC without weird dice and pages of spell mishaps and strange charts (and Judges Guild affiliations).