D&D 5E Did The Finished 5th Edition Change Anyone's Mind?

[Iosue]

Just a personal request, folks, that we already have a huge thread discussing the merits and demerits of 4e, so I'd like to keep this thread on topic regarding attitudes and feelings towards the 5e playtest and final product.

No, no, this was a Wizards.com article; the first look at the D&D5 halfling. It was in the very early days of the playtest. We all screamed bloody murder about the Fathead and Creepyhands halfling subraces and Jon Freaking Schindehette *shakes fist* said that we needed to understand the purpose of concept art; this isn't what the halfling would look like in the finished product. Our fury was the great thing about the playtest process, as Wizards was getting such fantastic feedback on these things so early in the process!

Two years pass, no new halfling pitch, PHB halflings end up looking just like concept art.

SCHINDEHETTE!

Schindehette left WotC in late 2013, so I don't know if you can really blame him for it.

 

[Raith5]

Thus far, I've gone through 2 significant changes.

First, I was very negative during the playtest, and that changed to pleasant surprise upon seeing the finished PHB. A lot of the things which made me feel actively hostile toward the game during playtest appeared to have been addressed, and I had hopes that the DMG would deliver what I wanted.

Second, I was very positive at the point of the PHB, but have become somewhat negative/apathetic after the DMG. The game feels more shallow than I expected. I had hoped that the modular approach would have a default which painted things in broad strokes, and then allowed for more granularity in areas where I wanted it via options. While I can certainly homebrew some of what I want into the game, I'm not yet convinced that doing so would lead to the experience I want.

Yeah, this is somewhat my position. I enjoy playing both 4e and 5e. I think my true gaming preferences fall between both editions. Despite having played D&D for 30 odd years I find some of the retro elements of 5e not to my taste (for example I think the 4e focus on three static defences to be better than a mixture of to hits and saves in 5e).

However, if I were to play a casual game or play with new players I would certainly pick up 5e but if I was to play a long detailed campaign with experienced gamers, I would pick up 4e. I just dont yet see the modules in 5e to support cinematic martial characters my group would want to play for example. But I am enjoying 5e, I enjoy the fast paced nature of 5e and I really respect the process by which they made and tested 5e.

 

[Eric V]

That's a similar experience with my own. I also agree that some aspects of the game went retro were not great (specifically the items you mention; it always made more sense to me that whomever is doing the action rolls the d20), and while the DMG is gorgeous and has interesting to read sections...it's not terribly deep. :/ I am one of those people that feels WotC didn't really deliver on the promise of modularity: yes there are modules there, but they are mostly facile, lacking detail, and unhelpful (E.g. Thanks for telling me I can make a short rest 5 minutes in my own game. What I needed was for you to use your expertise to tell me what other aspects of the game may need to be tweaked as a result of this decision.)

What 5e did for our group was bring into focus the things we like about the game in terms of playing vs. what we like about the game conceptually. Conceptually, I prefer 4e in almost every way, but playing 5e has been a better experience so far; we'll see when we get to 'paragon' levels. The combat system is simpler, sometimes too much so, but it turns out we prefer that to the extra detail that didn't always add extra pleasure that was present in 4e.

(If any of you play miniature games, I liken it to the difference between Heroclix and Heroscape).

We didn't think monster write-ups in 4e were anything special, but now, after the 5e MM, we do. We didn't think the lack of lore in the 4e MM was a big deal, but now, after the 5e MM, we very much notice its absence.

And so on, and so forth. Probably only a 'greatest hits album' edition like 5e could have clarified things for us this way.

 

[Imaro]

That's a pretty grandiose tautology. Yes, if you take a game that models a genre (not so well), and want to excuse the failure, it's facile enough to say that it's 'defined it's own genre.' If the game was also a fad for a while, /and/ attracted mainstream controversy that raised awareness of it's name, such that it has some ongoing success and notoriety, you can even point to that success as 'proof' that this 'new genre' is exactly what people want (and the only thing they want). Afterall, other similar games that don't fail to model the genre in the same ways don't so well (ignoring the fact they have 0 mainstream name recognition).

I am genuinely curious... what pre-established fantasy genre does D&D try to model... everything I've read about it's creation seems to suggest the creators were in fact not trying to emulate any one genre...

 

[Iosue]

I am genuinely curious... what pre-established fantasy genre does D&D try to model... everything I've read about it's creation seems to suggest the creators were in fact not trying to emulate any one genre...

My impression as well. Inspired by Howard and Moorcock swords and sorcery and Tolkienian high fantasy, to be sure, but it grew out of extrapolating from miniature wargame rules to allow for individual characters pursuing individual objectives in a closed, hostile environment. Even the tropes used in those early games quickly expanded beyond medieval fantasy. Temple of the Frog in the Blackmoor Supplement is a mash-up of fantasy and science fiction. D&D has always been sui generis.

 

[sheadunne]

I still don't like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. That feeling hasn't changed since the initial playtests and one of the reasons why I'm still not a fan of the edition. There are other reasons as well, but that one was the main reason I disengaged from the playtests. The feeling of advancing sideways also doesn't interest me much, but it wasn't an issue I had from the beginning, only from playing the game after its release. There are some nice bits though, so I like to keep up with the edition.

 

[scruffygrognard]

The playtest rules left me underwhelmed and I feared that 5th edition would fail to inspire me. Thankfully that hasn't been the case.

That said, I do wish there were more background options, class archetypes, cleric domains, and feats to choose from... which is ironic because I grew to hate how feats were implemented in, and integral to, 3.X. Similarly I wish that WotC would release pdfs of converted classic adventures for 5th edition, complete with adjusted encounters and treasure. My guess is that these would sell like hotcakes!

 

[Cernor]

But even with the simplicity and retro feel of 5E, there were some basic building blocks they missed like adding maneuvers to martial characters.

So... Grappling, shoving, disarming, overrunning/tumbling aren't "maneuvers"? Or do you think that those should be effects that any martial character can tack onto their normal attack?

 

[Jester David]

Throughout the long playtest, there were a lot of highs and lows, moments of anticipation, and even for those excited for 5e, moments of extreme disappointment (I still miss that one iteration of the Rogue...) Of course, there were plenty of opportunities to rage-quit, and many declarations thereof!

But with the Basic Rules and now all three Core Books now out and released, and with many having the opportunity to play and/or run the game, I'm wondering did anyone's mind change?

Were you excited about the playtest, only to lose interest, and ultimately find your worst fears confirmed with the release?

Were you negative about the playtest, only to be pleasantly surprised with the finished product?

If you gave up at any point during the playtest, what brought you back? (I'm assuming that people who gave up on the game have better things to do than read a forum devoted to it.)

I got a little disheartened in the middle of the playtest, before I realized the playtest was really a concept test and they weren't progressing from one release to another but throwing out ideas to see what people liked, so they could compile those ideas into a "best of" document.
So I was a little annoyed to realize the actual playtest wasn't *really* a playtest, being a concept test that wasn't even really designed to be playable and useful by itself. And that even small playability changes were not made (such as giving rogues d8 HD, which was done internally and planned but never done in the playtest docs), which made it seem like WotC was hesitant to release much of the game for free. Which they did anyway...

So, at the end of the playtest, I thought the final product could go either way. I'm happy it mostly went in directions I am happy with.

 

[Greg K]

I was underwhelmed by the playtest rules and about to write it off after the release of basic. Having seen the PHB and the DMG, I am neither positive nor negative on it, but ambivalent. There are positives and negatives. The first year of support is going to make up my mind. Right now, they are not doing a good job as I don't care about adventures.

Likes:
I like Backgrounds, Inspiration, Extra attacks tied to class, the bard, the battlemaster, the wizard traditions, and, for the most part, the Rogue, Warlock, and Circle of the Land Druid

My minor disappointments are
1) Races:
a) non-biological aspects of race in the race write-ups (e.g., Mountain dwarf armor proficiency). This gets in the way of races raised by other races and creates other cultural issues for specific campaigns. the non-biological stuff would have been better left to backgrounds and classes, imo.

2) More subclasses are needed

3) No Shaman, Warrior Mage, or Witch classes in the PHB. Some things are better served with classes and these three are fairly common archetypes

4) Expertise limited to Bard and Rogue and also hardwired into the classes. This makes a Bard or Rogue with Expertise in knowledge about Arcana better than a Wizard can ever be. The same goes for Religion and clerics. Furthermore, it prevents a fighter that grew up in the outdoors and used to model a wilderness warrior can never be as good at outdoor skills as a rogue with the same skills that started off as in the city and then later picks up wilderness skills (and some people keep saying to use the fighter as the non-spellcasting ranger wilderness expert by picking up an appropriate background and wearing light armor), etc.

5) Jack of all Trades: Personally, I have never liked the Jack of All trades for the Bard. I don't mind it as an option, but I don't appreciate it hardwired into the class.

6) Several of the variant backgrounds and background specialties were not fleshed out as their own backgrounds, because I would expect different skill proficiencies, tool proficiencies, and/or features (yeah, it is easy to change, but still)

7) No skill point variant in the DMG (not that it would hard to implement, but, in my opinion, a serious omission).

8) No DMG variants to replace simple and Martial weapons with AD&D weapon proficiencies and/or (Weapon Groups 2e fighter handbook/PO: Combat and Tactics/ 3e Unearthed Arcana)

9) First level spellcasting classes not granting cantrips only at first level. I have no problem granting a bonus first level spell or two to those starting out, but I don't like someone multiclassing into one of those classes gaining first level spells. I want them limited to cantrips for one level- have to learn the basics and crawl first. This is part of my dislike for the multi-classing rules.

10) Several of the classes not getting their subclasses at first level. Who trained the fighter? A gladiator? A bodyguard? a pirate on a ship? A swashbuckler? A tribal warrior whose people don't have armor and rely on maneuvers rather than rage?. Backgrounds are a good start, but this, in my opinion should affect armor proficiency and starting weapons in addition to fighting style (this is why I like 2e kits (in concept) and 3e classs variant better than 5e subclasses). Yeah, one could house rule giving a class something along the lines of the Barbarian or Monk when not wearing armor (and even removing certain armor types and requiring training rules to gain back the lost armor proficiency), but it would have been nice to have this built into the class or have provided a Light Armor Fighter class with swashbuckler, musketeer, duelist, etc. as subclasses that fills the gap between the Rogue and standard fighter.

Similarly, I am of the opinion, that the Land should be even more important than it is for Circle of the Land Druids. It should have more impact on the Druid at first level as in Mongoose's Quintessential Druid Web Enhancement- Lords of Terrain for 3e and on their spells than the circle bonus spells (I think Roger Moore did a better job in his web article on Environmental druids for 2e)

11) Not breaking AC down in a 3e fashion

My major disappointments, however, are the Cleric, the Monk, guidelines for customizing classes, the multi-classing rules, and

The cleric,in my opinion, goes back to the suck that was the non 2e priest of specific mythoi/specialty priest of early editions or pre-3e. Despite being better balanced than the default 3e cleric, I also still think it is terrible when compared to the 3e cleric if using spontaneous divine casting option from Unearthed Arcana, the DMG tailored spell list variant, and having the cloistered cleric. Access to the entire cleric spell list, every cleric getting turn undead, every cleric having at minimum medium armor and shields all without regard to deity should have died along time ago. I am not even impressed with many of the domain abilities or the divine intervention mechanic. I think that in addition to domains, it needed something similar to Warlock chain, pact, tome, but scholarly (no armor), martial, and something in between. As disappointing as I find the cleric, I don't know that I want to "fix" it for another edition.

The Monk: I have never been against having a monk class in D&D (see Will Shetterly's Witch Blood). However, I was disappointed to see many default abilities from 1e and 3e carry over to default abilities for all monks in 5e rather than being moved to a subclass where they belong.


Customizing a class: I, wish, there was more information on customizing classes and hard examples. I have done it over enough editions, but I know many DMs for more hard examples would be useful. During 3e, many people refused to use customizing a class from the 3.0 PHB and DMG, because they felt there were not enough hard examples of what things were worth when swapping one thing out for another or adjusting a classes skills, skill points, hit die, armor proficiency, weapon proficiencies. Among the people I know for whom more examples would beneficial are two people that started as 3e DMs for other groups before joining my 3e group as players.


Multi-classing: The multi-classing rules does not work for me- especially, if learning from another character while travelling between adventures when there is not a lot of downtime. Multi-classing grants too much for my taste. It was an issue for me as well in 3e, but with 3e Armor Feats, Weapon Feats (especially, if using UA Weapon groups) a feat that grants 3 0-level spells and no first level spells, it was much easier to house rule multi-classing into something more acceptable.

All the above stated, I think 5e is a better place to start house ruling than other editions to meet my needs as it would need less. However, I don't know that I want to heavily house rule/rewrite the cleric for a fourth time nor am I sure what to do fix my issues with multi-classing (which I prefer using as a last resort after classes and subclasses)