D&D 5E First experience with 5th edition and Lost Mines of Phandelver (no spoilers)

[Tony Vargas]

I dont see how anyone could compare a 3rd edition fighter to a 5th and say they are the same but with less stuff.

Well, the 3e fighter can't cast spells starting at 3rd level.

I think the issue might be that you are comparing 3e and 5e as if they are trying to be/do the same game/thing, when in fact they aren't.

In a sense they are. 5e /is/ trying to be 3e for 3e fans. It's just also trying to be classic D&D for older D&D fans. There's some optional rules and module that tilt it one way or the other.

This might actually be a direct improvement to the grapple system. We didn't get into grapple rules during our sessions, but it is interesting to read about this. Third edition grappling has always been a bit clunky.

It's a huge simplification. You can't do as much, but the resolution is a breeze. It's an improvement in the opposite direction of PF's, but both make it less unfair, as well.

I can understand why they did it, and considering the backlash they got with 4th edition, they have every reason to keep some of the oddities of D&D in the game. But still, it's the type of missed opportunities that keep me searching for a system that is more realistic in its portrayal of combat.

The hard part isn't finding a game you like better than D&D, it's finding a GM or group of players who agree with you.

I should stress that my impression of 5h edition was but a first impression, as we didn't get to play at higher levels. Of course some people might be wondering at this point, has this changed my mind about 5th edition? Well... yes and no. It sounds different, and in the case of grapple rules it even sounds like a minor improvement. But did it feel different? No, it played pretty much the same way. But like I said, I only got to play a few sessions of low level Lost Mines of Pandelver with a newb DM. So it's merely a first impression.

I hope you'll give it a chance at a 2nd & 3rd and 13th impression, as well.

 

[happyhermit]

Of course some people might be wondering at this point, has this changed my mind about 5th edition? Well... yes and no. It sounds different, and in the case of grapple rules it even sounds like a minor improvement. But did it feel different? No, it played pretty much the same way. But like I said, I only got to play a few sessions of low level Lost Mines of Pandelver with a newb DM. So it's merely a first impression.

I just want to say, I have found hearing your experience and views interesting. I have had more experience with newbies, primarily 4e players, and earlier editions than with people who have been mainly playing 3.x. 4e players seem to have seen the most difference in how it plays but most have enjoyed it, even if it is not their preferred system at the moment. People from other editions seem to generally feel it is "not that different", and even if they are not amazed and are ticked off by some details, it seems generally pretty none offensive. I do think that 5e makes it a bit easier to play in a way that makes it even more "not that different" from the way one used to play other editions, which was likely the aim but also likely makes it possible to miss a lot of the changes it makes, or rather allows.

 

[Imaculata]

Well one of the things I did notice, was just how quickly it was to create characters. Anyone who has played other editions knows that it takes forever to fill out a character sheet in those editions. Plus it also involves a lot of "passing the PHB around". With 5th edition this went really quick.

A fellow player (who was also used to playing 3rd edition) was a bit irritated that the character creation was so short, but I told her: "Just let it go, and have a fun game". Regardless, she seemed to have an immediate anti-reaction to the simplified character creation. Maybe she was just in a different mindset than I was. I think she really enjoys picking skills and feats, and when you make a first level character in 5th edition, there's just not a lot of all that tweaking. You just pick a race, pick a class, and a background, and there you go.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the issue might be that you are comparing 3e and 5e as if they are trying to be/do the same game/thing, when in fact they aren't.

They both are placed on a similar d20 chassis with similar lore, but they diverge (if they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation at all).

3.5e is a game that has a strong element of crunchy numbers and zillions of options. That's a 3.5e feature.

5e is a game that intentionally simplifies crunchy options, numbers and choices, with a shift to on the spot, no rules (nor precedent) DM adjudication. That is a 5e feature.

They are doing two very different specific things, and presenting those as features of the system. Since those two things are at least partly mutually exclusive, it only stands to reason that you are more likely to prefer the game that has the feature you like more.

What would be incorrect would be to say that one of them is a better or worse version of the other, because they aren't trying to do the same things.

The problem with choosing to view things this simplified is that lots of people appreciate the balance and non-complexity that is a great improvement of 5e over 3e; while still bemoaning certain design choices 5e made that makes for a TOO simple and non-involved game, choices that can't be explained as necessary to achieve the former.

 

[happyhermit]

Well one of the things I did notice, was just how quickly it was to create characters. Anyone who has played other editions knows that it takes forever to fill out a character sheet in those editions. Plus it also involves a lot of "passing the PHB around". With 5th edition this went really quick.

A fellow player (who was also used to playing 3rd edition) was a bit irritated that the character creation was so short, but I told her: "Just let it go, and have a fun game". Regardless, she seemed to have an immediate anti-reaction to the simplified character creation. Maybe she was just in a different mindset than I was. I think she really enjoys picking skills and feats, and when you make a first level character in 5th edition, there's just not a lot of all that tweaking. You just pick a race, pick a class, and a background, and there you go.

I have heard that it was to balance multi-classing, but whatever the reason, dispersing so many feature over the first few levels has made creating a 1st level PC MUCH simpler than other editions. For new players (IME) that has been amazing, as I have NEVER encountered a new player that thought character creations was too short, in any TTRPG. On the other hand, people accustomed to the level of mechanical customization present in some other editions could very well be at a loss by the lack of choices, especially at first level. They also tend (IME) to not put much emphasis on the Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, aspects.

The way features are spread over the levels has also be very helpful for new players as it allows them time to get a handle on them slowly rather than giving them all at once, which can be overwhelming. Of course, it is easy to see how this could be seen as underwhelming to those used to TTRPG with all the abilities, stats, and all the other stuff that a new player has no idea about.

For those experienced players that crave the options, starting at 3rd or higher is the most obvious "solution". I haven't really thought too much about how the options would stack up against creating a 3.x level one PC but I think that at least the number of decisions would be comparable (more?), if not the number of options.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The problem with choosing to view things this simplified is that lots of people appreciate the balance and non-complexity that is a great improvement of 5e over 3e; while still bemoaning certain design choices 5e made that makes for a TOO simple and non-involved game, choices that can't be explained as necessary to achieve the former.

You're probably right, but could you provide an example or two of such choices that aren't necessary?

I have heard that it was to balance multi-classing, but whatever the reason, dispersing so many feature over the first few levels has made creating a 1st level PC MUCH simpler than other editions. For new players (IME) that has been amazing, as I have NEVER encountered a new player that thought character creations was too short, in any TTRPG.

Some players really get into the character creation mini-game, but generally not new players. 5e most definitely does not provide the same level of character creation mini-game as 3e or 4e.

(I see that as a feature, since while I can enjoy the mini-game on occasion, more often than not it just gets in the way of the game I prefer--the play sessions. Hmm...a friend of mine who is adopting 5e but is more reluctant and still quicker than I to immediately make negative judgments regarding elements that seem off to him at first glance, also likes the 3e character creation mini-game quite a bit. I'm beginning to think there may be a strong correlation here.)

 

[CapnZapp]

You're probably right, but could you provide an example or two of such choices that aren't necessary?

What I mean is that 5E is a vast improvement over previous editions in several crucial areas.

Let me just give a few short examples that are true for me:
- vs 3E spellcasting (the buff game is gone; quadratic wizard power is reduced; etc)
- vs 4E the wonder in magic items is back
- vs 3E building npcs is vastly simplified (doesn't have to build "PC NPCs", doesn't have to give NPCs loot to make them function)

So why you would want to play 5E is clear.

Now, there are areas where you or somebody else might feel 5E went in the wrong direction, or scaled back on previous ambition levels to a disappointing degree. And now I don't mean things that arguably contribute to the core of the edition's success.

Because if you take something like the "I want NPCs to follow the exact same rules as PCs" argument, that was a dealbreaker for me in 3E, and something I am convinced would have lessened 5Es success considerably.

No, instead I mean things that can be argued would not have significantly impacted 5E's success. But still happened.

Examples of this include:
- the almost naive way certain monsters are designed. Especially higher-CR monsters are prone to be caught "with their pants down", meaning that they are susceptible to trivial* (almost abusive) combos.
*) Well, trivial to any high level player worth her salt, anyway. Obviously not at all something clueless designers could come up with
- the way magic item creation was a baby thrown out with the bathwater. I don't mean 3E:ish rules need be part of the core rules (i.e. be present in the DMG). I mean that they still haven't offered anything else than the hilariously broken and completely insane rarity system even as an UA option.
- the very cautious approach to splat books. I can completely understand the reluctance to commit before success was assured, but now? Many players want more crunch to their character building.

In short, for 5E they made a lot of changes. Most of them are good. Most of them contribute directly to 5E's success. But not all of them.

(By the way those three examples aren't things I put equal weight to myself. I mostly just brought up things I've seen forumists having trouble with, filtered by what I think are changes that directly contributed to 5E's success, and therefore aren't worth trying to reverse. Myself, I'd say weak monsters are of medium concern, item creation of high concern and little crunch of low concern)

They made at least some choices that can't be explained (or at least excused) by the overarching need to make 5E a success.

For the purpose of this thread, I strongly react to the "advice" that if I don't like something with 5E I should go back to playing 3E or PF. That's rude, that's dismissive.

I want to use 5E. I just want a few key areas to get better support.

I definitely will not go back to the wreckage that is d20. So I need WotC to step up their support for these key areas.

I hope this gives you your answer, Sword...?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

No, instead I mean things that can be argued would not have significantly impacted 5E's success. But still happened.

Examples of this include:
- the almost naive way certain monsters are designed. Especially higher-CR monsters are prone to be caught "with their pants down", meaning that they are susceptible to trivial* (almost abusive) combos.
*) Well, trivial to any high level player worth her salt, anyway. Obviously not at all something clueless designers could come up with
- the way magic item creation was a baby thrown out with the bathwater. I don't mean 3E:ish rules need be part of the core rules (i.e. be present in the DMG). I mean that they still haven't offered anything else than the hilariously broken and completely insane rarity system even as an UA option.
- the very cautious approach to splat books. I can completely understand the reluctance to commit before success was assured, but now? Many players want more crunch to their character building.

In short, for 5E they made a lot of changes. Most of them are good. Most of them contribute directly to 5E's success. But not all of them.

...

I hope this gives you your answer, Sword...?

Yeah, thanks, that's what I was asking. I agree with you on monsters. I haven't had problems with them yet, but I haven't run many high level games yet either. It wouldn't have hurt anything to be a bit more careful with design (though the cost in time may have been too much of a trade off compared to getting good enough actually published--I'm a recovering perfectionist).

On the other two...I don't know. Those are definitely two things where I'm glad they are doing it the way they did it (other than the magic item pricing being ridiculously low for the low level of magic assumed--compare to plate armor, real estate and vehicles, and it seems that the world would be full of a lot more magical items than the standard treasure suggests if it's that easy to make them). Putting more rules into the game that are things people were accustomed to using in prior editions changes the game for most people--because they will have an immediate following of people jumping right into them. If magic item creation becomes more clearly codified, it will get heavily used. Players will start thinking of it as more of an assumed option. DMs will feel pressured to allow it. If that gets enough momentum, they will eventually start publishing material under the assumption that those rules are being used. Are there a significant amount of people who would be highly put off by that? I definitely would. If the game started going that way I would likely stop buying and allowing new books. That's not what I want from 5e. In fact, the lack of that sort of thing is part of the draw of 5e for me. I absolutely do not want it to ever look like it's going the route that 3.5e did. I could be in a small enough minority as not to matter, but there could be a lot of people like me. Same with splatbooks.

I think you may be underestimating the effect on the feel of the edition those last two points would have had.

 

[CapnZapp]

If magic item creation becomes more clearly codified, it will get heavily used. Players will start thinking of it as more of an assumed option. DMs will feel pressured to allow it. If that gets enough momentum, they will eventually start publishing material under the assumption that those rules are being used. Are there a significant amount of people who would be highly put off by that? I definitely would.

Thank you for saying out loud what lots of other posters try to hide behind supposedly rational arguments.

This is of course, a completely unsustainable argument.

Like magic item creation is some sort of special snowflake. "You can get whatever you want, as long as it isn't that". "I have the strength to ignore any optional rule, with that as the sole exception". "Even if it isn't core, my players will force me to treat it as core".

People are selfish and they rather deny others (me) what they want and need outright, rather than to have to say "no" to their own players.

That is the entirety of the opposition towards sane magic item creation rules. Thank you for being the first one to say it out loud (that I am aware of), even after months of arguing here on ENWorld.

 

[Bigkahuna]

In any role-playing game what is in the player's handbook is effectively a social contract about what the rules of the game are. Anything that will be excluded, changed or added, a proper GM will negotiate with the players in good faith and in the interest of creating a better experience for everyone. I don't think GM's are in their right to simply declare "these are the rules in my game" without discussion. A role-playing session belongs as much to the GM as it does to the players and its a particular brand of GM who simply states "how things are going to go in my game" as a matter of fact, this sort of my way or the highway.

That said I do believe that good players also respect a GM's desire to present a certain type of experience and good players will usually agree with the GM on his exclusion or alteration or rules that exist in the players handbook. After all the GM is not the bad guy, he is your storyteller and he's trying to create an experience with his style of GMing.

So it swings both ways so if you have good players a good GM coming to an agreement on what the rules of the game are is very easy to do.

As such I'm personally not opposed to having lots and lots of optional rules, quite to the contrary very often I find myself wishing for a particular optional rule and if it doesn't exist I have to deal with something that as a GM I think is quite boring (creating house rules). For example mass combat is something I needed for a game recently and was disappointed to discover its not in the book, then I found the rules for it distributed free by Wizards of the Coast and was delighted to have something to use. It saved me a lot of work.

Rules like magic creation rules should exist but they should exist as optional rules so that it's clear that whether it applies to your game or not, requires a conversation between the GM and the players. The hope is always that what a designer puts in the hands of the players can be used unaltered, so that the player handbook really is the rulebook rather than a book that is heavily altered by a second book.

I personally think the format should be Players Handbook, Optional Rules, DM Guide, Monster Manual. Optional rules should be filled with things like alternative class systems, alternative magic systems, alternative character creation and death systems, mass combat, magic creation systems.... fill it to the brim with as many rules as you like.

Putting something in the players handbook however as mentioned above, is a core rule from that point. Its fair for the players to assume if its in there, its a rule, a part of every game they will play in. Sure we can negotiate things to a degree for specific settings and such, but generally speaking, the book should be as general and as much a core foundation for the game so that it does need altering.

I think its why I like 5e best of all the systems, I can hand the book to a player and say "these are the rules of the game"... and don't need to throw in a EXCEPT.. or BUT... when explaining them.