D&D 5E Fifth Edition.....Why?

[Aldarc]

I would agree with "best" but not perfect.

Probably more. That's off the top of my head.

A number of classes (e.g. Sorcerer, Warlock, etc.) or even subclasses (e.g., Pact of the Blade, Way of the Four Elements, etc.) could have used additional rounds of playtesting feedback.

 

[Bardbarian]

Potatoe

 

[Ilbranteloth]

2nd ed AD&D, yes. 1st ed AD&D, no: the attack and save tables for MUs and thieves have entries for 21+; the spell charts for MUs and clerics go to level 29; etc.

2e didn't either. The rules for advancing above 20th level were in Forgotten Realms Adventures, and there were plenty of NPCs that were higher level. I would have to check 4e, but I think 5e is the first version with a "hard" cap at 20. Of course in AD&D and earlier, all you gained were a few more hit points and more spell slots if you were a spellcaster.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

... However what drove me to ignore the rule set was that fundamental lack of variability that 3rd Edition actually offered. It seems like I'm pretty much stuck in the class I began the game in and I can either choose a mediocre stat bonus where I used to be able to alter the standard progression path by taking a feat, and the stat bonus would come later which demonstrated a focus in a differing area of my character's priority.
So, why should I play 5th Edition? It eliminated the wonderful options a player could take his character and even it's weak multiclassing can't portray the most famous characters of our favorite DnD novel characters. I mean, stat out Elminster the way he should be in 5th Ed, or even Mirt the Merciless.

See, this is where I have nearly the opposite opinion. I think 5e is the first ruleset since early 2e that moved towards more flexibility. I can create any character type I want, because the type of character, their personality, their favored approach isn't limited by what rules I can pick that are acceptable. To me a character is more about who they are than the crunch of the game.

It's already moving more toward a 3e approach with the addition of more races, classes and archetypes. (Although how could it not).

Take the swashbuckler. It's a pretty cool archetype. Except why do you have to be a rogue to buckle swashes? I like the different approach to sneak attack, although it's not entirely necessary. You could have played a perfect swashbuckler with the core bard, fighter and rogue classes quite easily (along with others). To me perhaps a Dex-based build of whatever class, add acrobatics, and a lot of attitude. Additional mechanics aren't necessary. Now it's a bit tougher because they'll "never be as good as the swashbuckler."

I get the irony. I have a huge set of houserules. But as I continue playing, we're stripping back more and more of the abilities and such, and getting back to a class being just the framework that you build a character on top of. Any way you'd like. In my case, I've kept most of the abilities, but allow the player to select which class abilities they want from a pool of "rogue abilities" if you're a rogue. Other than cleric and paladin, which logically follow a more restricted approach, I don't see any reason to limit any character to the archetypes that the designers decide are appropriate.

Why does every mastermind gain the ability to mimic the speech of others. I don't recall Capone, Blofeld, or...well any mastermind, really, having that ability. Heck, even the disguise and forgery aspects. If I want to be able to mimic, why can't I just take proficiency in performance and/or deception and tell the DM that I want the character to be able to mimic other's speech? Why does it have to be a special ability in a class, or a feat (of which it's both)?

Elminster's another good example. Ever since he started acquiring additional classes in the novels, they started adding classes in the game. Sure he was once a rogue. But that was hundreds of years ago, and a 20th level anything will be better than your average person at rogue stuff if they want. He knows how to pick a lock? Great, get proficiency in thief's tools, and call him a 20th level wizard. My only real complaint here is that there is still no general wizard class.

So for my preferences, I find that it still has too many rules. But it's much, much closer to a "less is more" approach that I think is the better one for me. The mechanics themselves are quite streamlined and elegant, and much easier to extract from the rest of the rules to modify and tweak. It's not quite the separation of mechanics and fluff that I'd hope for, but the package as a whole is much better designed (as expected) than AD&D in terms of complexity.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Its also debatable how well 3E does at making famous characters given the ridiculous multiclassing some of them pull

Oh, 3e was fantastic for building to a concept, it just required time, a pile of books, and system mastery. OK, and it might be 12 levels before you've collected everything it called for.
The results, of course, might not play anything like a corresponding fictional character performs in its native medium, and might range from OP to non-viable.
But 3.x/PF is arguably peak D&D in terms of sheer volume of player options.

 

[Tony Vargas]

2e didn't either. The rules for advancing above 20th level were in Forgotten Realms Adventures.

Well then, it had a hard cap of 20 until that came out. Similarly, 3.0 had a hard cap of 20, as did 3.5, until the Epic Level Handbook.

I would have to check 4e,

Hard cap at 30.

but I think 5e is the first version with a "hard" cap at 20.

Can't say for sure until the ed wraps, there could always be a supplement for higher level play, but it would be the second such after 3.0, FWIW. Existential, I know.

 

[5ekyu]

I must admit that the idea of statting up NPCs as monsters is annoying.

I stat my NPC as monsters, as classed characters, as mixed bags of both and however else i decide. I am pretty sure as GM i am in control of NPC and world in 5e. So i like the options i have.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[smbakeresq]

I would agree with "best" but not perfect.

• 
  1. SAD classes combined with deterministic score generation (and ASIs) has led to cookie-cutter, min-maxed clones.
  2. Further exacerbated by Dex being too good.
  3. Archery is too powerful; needs to have some more disadvantages.
  4. The attempt to make Feats optional by making them interchangeable with ASIs has resulted in a clear calculus: a few feats are strictly better than ASIs, the rest are strictly worse. Again, result is too little variety.
  5. Interpretation of Stealth rules left a little too much to DMs.
  6. Ranger poorly defined.
  7. Bonus actions problematic (e.g. for two-weapon fighting)
  8. Balance between long-rest and short-rest characters too dependent upon encounters-per-day.
  9. Some classes could stand to have more of their power shifted to sub-classes to allow for greater variety.

Probably more. That's off the top of my head.

That list is essentially correct.

5e is without question smoother to run and easier to learn. However is not without problems, many of which can be fixed with small adjustments.

 

[Sacrosanct]

2e didn't either. The rules for advancing above 20th level were in Forgotten Realms Adventures, and there were plenty of NPCs that were higher level. I would have to check 4e, but I think 5e is the first version with a "hard" cap at 20. Of course in AD&D and earlier, all you gained were a few more hit points and more spell slots if you were a spellcaster.

I played AD&D as my preferred edition for 30 years (skipped 3e and 4e). And in my gut feeling (and experience)? There were two type of uses for the XP tables:

- standard play, from level 1 to low teens
- Monty haul. you either got to the high teens super fast, or you just said screw it and started at level 20 and ended up at level 36 after a couple weeks

So from a designer standpoint, if I see the above is true, it's entirely reasonable for me to say "We're just gonna ignore Monty Haul and focus our design on a standard level of play in this new edition, so level 20 is more than enough of a level cap."

 

[Greg K]

Take the swashbuckler. It's a pretty cool archetype. Except why do you have to be a rogue to buckle swashes? I like the different approach to sneak attack, although it's not entirely necessary. You could have played a perfect swashbuckler with the core bard, fighter and rogue classes quite easily (along with others). To me perhaps a Dex-based build of whatever class, add acrobatics, and a lot of attitude. Additional mechanics aren't necessary. Now it's a bit tougher because they'll "never be as good as the swashbuckler."

Personally, I don't like the the Rogue's Swashbuckler archetype. However, as a DM and player, I do like having mechanics that help back up the concept. In my games, the ideal version is a subclass of a fighter class variant per Khaalis's Light Armored Fighter variant

I don't see any reason to limit any character to the archetypes that the designers decide are appropriate.

Why does every mastermind gain the ability to mimic the speech of others. I don't recall Capone, Blofeld, or...well any mastermind, really, having that ability. Heck, even the disguise and forgery aspects[/quote]
For myself, I have been disappointed with the implementation of many of the official subclasses (if we limit the subclasses to Xanthar's Guide, many becomes all but one or two). However, the biggest offender to me of what you describe has been the Monk class- an issue dating back to 1e.