D&D 5E 5e is Fun to play, as a player

[Charlaquin]

I DM most of the time. I’ve played enough to say that 5e is decently fun to play, but nowhere as fun as 4e was.
I do find it more interesting and rewarding as a DM, though.

Same, precisely.

 

[Oofta]

I've had fun playing all editions at varying types, but 5E is my favorite to DM and play. In 4E clerics were probably more fun than in 5E for me but eventually I burned out on the nature of how things worked. With 3.5 the builds were more interesting but, ugh, the paperwork an sooo many dice and so on.

No game is perfect but I like the streamlined and simplified play of 5E. Sometimes I just want to play a BDF. When it comes to combat and tactics it helps if the DM allows and encourages creative solutions. For example in my last game I had someone literally swinging from the chandelier - they had to make an acrobatics check but got advantage on their first attack.

The out of combat game is also quite flexible. With the flattened difficulty curve people feel like they can contribute even if they aren't specialized when ability/proficiency checks come into play.

Any game can be boring, engagement in the fiction by both player and DM goes a long way to making things come to life.

 

[Tallifer]

I agree that 5E is great fun as a player. I love my Bard and my Paladin, and I constantly see other classes I want to play.

It is a headache for me to run however, since I have already filled my head with all the minutae of 4E, and since 4E is all written in keywords which quickly define things for me. Plus 5E's rules are so influenced by 1E, 2E and 3E (all of which I have played and I still play OSR), that they all blur together into a mush of wordy paragraphs.

 

[Azzy]

I think a lot of it depends on the DM. That said, 5e is my favorite edition of D&D to date, both as a DM and player. This is what I wish 3e had been. Having rotating DM duties has allowed be to play in a few campaigns. So far, I've played an EK Fighter, a Shadow Sorcerer, and most recently, a Monster Slayer Ranger.

 

[cmad1977]

Yes.

 

[Todd Roybark]

create barriers, apply negative conditions, create catch-22s, all kinds of fun stuff!

That falls under “impeding” things, does it not?
Don’t get me wrong, the 4e Wizard was very fun to play.

While casters get more options through spells, martial classes are not only not powerful enough but they're boring.

This has not been my experience. The key, I think, is one needs to describe one’s actions narratively.....describing how you grab the Githyanki Knight, and then punch him, is always more fun than saying “I grapple, and attack”.

One of the groups I play in has a player, new to the game, whom is a natural narrative roll player, and they are excelling at playing a fighter, and super fun to play with.

 

[cmad1977]

That falls under “impeding” things, does it not?
Don’t get me wrong, the 4e Wizard was very fun to play.

This has not been my experience. The key, I think, is one needs to describe one’s actions narratively.....describing how you grab the Githyanki Knight, and then punch him, is always more fun than saying “I grapple, and attack”.

One of the groups I play in has a player, new to the game, whom is a natural narrative roll player, and they are excelling at playing a fighter, and super fun to play with.

Yeah.
Ive found that creative players play fighters creatively while “boring” player play fighters boringly.

 

[TwoSix]

This has not been my experience. The key, I think, is one needs to describe one’s actions narratively.....describing how you grab the Githyanki Knight, and then punch him, is always more fun than saying “I grapple, and attack”.

One of the groups I play in has a player, new to the game, whom is a natural narrative roll player, and they are excelling at playing a fighter, and super fun to play with.

This is a natural and common divide within the community; for a number of us, adding a narrative layer to the base mechanic isn't enough to make it more fun. (It is, I agree, MORE fun, but it isn't enough.) I already have TTRPGs I play with simple resolution mechanics and a focus on adding narrative to those mechanics (for my group, it's PbtA games). For a D&D game, I'm looking for more complexity in the mechanics.

I'm not arguing that the fighter or other martial classes should be changed to suit my preferences (I have homebrew that scratches the "complex martial" itch); I'm pointing out that "roleplay more" doesn't work for every style of player.

 

[S'mon]

For me 5e is a lot of fun on both sides of the table. About equal to 4e as a player, for different reasons than 4e, but more fun than 4e as GM - and vastly vastly superior to 3e or PF as GM.

Mind you I am currently playing & running 1e as well as playing and running 5e; 1e still has a LOT going for it too!

 

[Todd Roybark]

adding a narrative layer to the base mechanic isn't enough to make it more fun. (It is, I agree, MORE fun, but it isn't enough.)

I hear and understand the point you are making. The recently mothballed Psi Knight was a great fix for those of us that need “a bit more”.