D&D 5E D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.

[Charlaquin]

I've not paid much attention to 5e since the playtests. I noped out once they ditched XP budgets and 4e monster design. DM convenience was a deal breaker for me.

I've played in a game run by my ten year old nephew though.

Well, uh… XP budgets are a thing, and the latest monster designs are incorporating more 4e elements. Might be a good time to give 5e a second look. Course, I can’t blame you if you’d rather just stick with 4e

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don’t disagree, but even the most complex characters in 5e are much less complex to play in combat than pretty much any 4e character. YMMV on if that’s a good thing or not, but I think it’s safe to say that WotC was very successful in lowering both the floor and the ceiling of combat complexity.

Also, at the risk of fanning the flames of edition competition, I suspect the complexity of combat in 4e played a not insignificant role in driving demand for simpler combat in 5e.

Perhaps so, but (a) that still doesn't seem to comport with the research they actually did, (b) that doesn't explain making the "simple martial combat" options so weak, and (c) there's a pretty clear "baby with the bathwater" argument to be made here (not least because of the success of, and interest in, Level Up and other products like it, which are sold specifically on the basis of adding greater depth and complexity, especially out of combat.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

1/4 level would be less than 5e proficiency bonus.

Only by a sliver.

Proficiency starts at +2 and rises to +6 at level 17. It is "quarter level plus 1, round up."

 

[MwaO]

Only by a sliver.

Proficiency starts at +2 and rises to +6 at level 17. It is "quarter level plus 1, round up."

The reason proficiency starts at +2 is so 16 mod(+3)+2 = +5 or hits AC 13, the standard CR 1/8-CR 3 AC, on an 8. Or 65% of the time, essentially 2/3rds of the time. Which is basically what 4e does.

Just in general, 5e uses a ton of 4e/2 math. You can expect to roughly go up +9 to hit over 19 levels instead of +18, +6 to important skills instead of +12, get approximately half the magic items of an inherent bonus 4e game, etc...you just don't have quite as much clarity to the specifics of when you'll get some additional bonuses or the equivalent to hit in 5e.

I would expect that math to continue to make D&DOne usable with 5e adventures.

 

[Haplo781]

The reason proficiency starts at +2 is so 16 mod(+3)+2 = +5 or hits AC 13, the standard CR 1/8-CR 3 AC, on an 8. Or 65% of the time, essentially 2/3rds of the time. Which is basically what 4e does.

Just in general, 5e uses a ton of 4e/2 math. You can expect to roughly go up +9 to hit over 19 levels instead of +18, +6 to important skills instead of +12, get approximately half the magic items of an inherent bonus 4e game, etc...you just don't have quite as much clarity to the specifics of when you'll get some additional bonuses or the equivalent to hit in 5e.

I would expect that math to continue to make D&DOne usable with 5e adventures.

Except saving throws. 4e did half level + mod + class/race bonus (usually 0 to 3) to defenses. 5e does mod + proficiency bonus for proficient saves and mod only for nonproficient saves. So you can wind up with your best save at +11 or better and your worst at -1.

You also have twice as many saves to worry about.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The reason proficiency starts at +2 is so 16 mod(+3)+2 = +5 or hits AC 13, the standard CR 1/8-CR 3 AC, on an 8. Or 65% of the time, essentially 2/3rds of the time. Which is basically what 4e does.

Just in general, 5e uses a ton of 4e/2 math. You can expect to roughly go up +9 to hit over 19 levels instead of +18, +6 to important skills instead of +12, get approximately half the magic items of an inherent bonus 4e game, etc...you just don't have quite as much clarity to the specifics of when you'll get some additional bonuses or the equivalent to hit in 5e.

I would expect that math to continue to make D&DOne usable with 5e adventures.

Yeah I don't expect them to change any underlying math stuff.

It is worth noting though that 5e does not give proficiency to anything except the few things with which you are proficient, while 4e does give half-level bonus to everything and training is extra on top of that. (Not technically everything, e.g. I don't think you add the half-level bonus to initiative, but it's close enough.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It is worth noting though that 5e does not give proficiency to anything except the few things with which you are proficient, while 4e does give half-level bonus to everything and training is extra on top of that. (Not technically everything, e.g. I don't think you add the half-level bonus to initiative, but it's close enough.)

this is something I think they need to change. I don't know if 1/2 prof is what is needed or not but your 'bad' saves should still go up.

i played with the idea of +1 at 5th +1 at 11th +1 at 17th following the cantrip progression... and give a +1 all stats (still max 20) at level 10.

So default array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8. I can easily say odds are those bottom 3 are most likely never getting better as is... so you end up with -1 0 and +1 your whole career. even as DCs get to be 15, 17 and even 20.

my way that +1 to all stat don't matter to the bottom 3 (unless you boost other ways) but at 5th level you would be at 0 +1 and +2 instead at 11th +1 +2 +3 and by the end game +2 +3 +4 not anywhere near as good as your two main stats most likely being +3-+5 and your prof +6 so +9-+11

 

[glass]

No, it think Essentials was designed in a way that things outside of Merl's and Co's preferences could and would be supported. It was designed in a way that eventually the Designers would have to design classes outside their comfort zone and force them to analyze their views

That does not contradict what I said in the slightest.

5e just came before in the design could fully get there.

5e did not just "come along", it was deliberately created to replace 4e.

 

[Minigiant]

That does not contradict what I said in the slightest.

It does.

4e Essentials was a vehicle to transition to 5e.

My point is that if 5e never appeared, most of the past and current D&D designers would have "disliked it" because it would have forced them to design outside their comfort zones.

4e Essentials basically created a stripped down class for each fantasy trope. Since it was essential, they started with the Classics. However when Essentials ended they already hit 90% of the classics.

• Warpriest
• Knight
• Slayer
• Thief
• Mage
• Sentinel
• Cavalier
• Hunter
• Scout
• Hexblade
• Assassin
• Blackguard
• Binder
• Vampire
• Berserker
• Skald
• Protector
• Witch
• Essential
• Shair

It was 2 years and they hit 90% of the classics. They were just missing the minstrel bard, martial artist monk, and the mystic psion. They'd have to design new classes soon. This is different from designing a subclass. We are talking pages of lore,power, and new mechanics. No more leaning heavy of nostalgia. Real effort into stirring the creative juices with no rose colored visions of the past to cover you if the idea isn't super popular.

Late Edition D&D at its finest. Basically as a edition gets old, the owners of the IP have to still produce books but are out of old ideas. This is when all the new ideas for classes and races and feats come. You still need to print books but there is nostalgia to milk.

The cynic and hustler in me thinks 5e's slow schedule is a trick to slowly squeeze out nostalgia content to desperate fans who willl end up buying books out of nostalgia regardless of quality. AKA the Spelljammer books.

 

[darjr]

Spelliammer doesn’t really have nostalgia for itself. If you’ve been paying attention it seems nearly nobody buying and exited for it now owned it back in the day.