How happy are you with your regular ruleset?

[Distracted DM]

So something like: extra work needed to rebalance the game?

Yup. On the face of it A5e looks like the good parts of 3e customization+flavor but in 5e- which I like. For example their herald (paladin) has smites, but SMITE isnt the biggest mechanical identify of the class.
Their maneuvers are kind of Book of Nine Swords for 5e- it makes martials very cool.
On the side of this, characters will have A LOT of features, so many that players can feel overwhelmed or totally forget about some of them. "I think I have a feature that lets me use my Wisdom for all Arcana, History, Nature, or Religion checks." Takes 1 minute to parse their list of features. "Oh damn it's only for History, Nature, or Religion- not Arcana."
And the origins, heritage/culture/background/destiny, are going to make the PCs surprisingly powerful out of the gate. You can easily have two resistances to common damage types, for instance, plus a host of other cool but very powerful options. Heck, you can even be sometimes immune to fire or lightning or whatever. It reminded me of the original 5e yuan-ti

They had a lot of designers working on separate sections of the books with not enough communication- which results in some weird stuff or interactions because they didn't seem to have a really solid editor. For example there are some maneuvers which sound really cool- like Defy Magic. But it turns out that there are only 2-3 creatures in the entire Monstrous Menagerie that this'll be worth using on at the level that the Herald can get this maneuver, because it only works on spell attacks, meaning attack rolls. And the herald only knows 6 maneuvers- this is a trap choice unless you house-rule it to expand its usefulness.

Some maneuvers are just plain OP, but you won't know it 'til the fighter is 5th level and using Stunning Assault in every encounter. So you have to house-rule it to be useful but not ridiculously good.

And then there are some classes, like the Berserker. Apparently the designer of the berserker thought the 5e barbarian was incredibly weak, because they took what is probably a 7 or 8/10 class and cranked it up to 12. Heavy armor, evasion, danger sense, expanded crits which will blind creatures with no save, and a couple subclasses that are so clearly better than every other option that after all this you should really just toss in the towel and use the 5e barbarian instead.

That being said, I still run A5e and their T&T book and MM are fantastic. Buuut I am open to checking out other options when it comes to classes etc.

 

[zakael19]

What is it about the 5e system that you are having trouble with?

I dislike the skill system, the complexity of spell casting, reactive saving throws, tendency towards static combat, preponderance of save vs suck abilities, limitations on martial flexibility, lack of a baseline fail-forward mechanism, core assumptions presented in most APs/campaigns that shape the culture, deeply simplistic and hard to gauge monster system (as the plethora of 3rd party options indicate), amount of DM work the game expects to fix things…

 

[Wolfpack48]

I dislike the skill system, the complexity of spell casting, reactive saving throws, tendency towards static combat, preponderance of save vs suck abilities, limitations on martial flexibility, lack of a baseline fail-forward mechanism, core assumptions presented in most APs/campaigns that shape the culture, deeply simplistic and hard to gauge monster system (as the plethora of 3rd party options indicate), amount of DM work the game expects to fix things…

So just one or two things! And only Somewhat Unsatisfied! Thanks, these details are always helpful, and will help with follow up polls.

 

[zakael19]

Only somewhat unsatisfied because the 3rd party work is so broad that you can find tested & core math compatible fixes for most of this, at least on the DM side. Since most players I’ve run into want to play 5e - and I’m not interested in complexity for its own sake (PF), that’s enough to keep me tolerating it. I’ve made the commitment to myself that there will be no new 5e games in my future tho.

D&D2024 might fix some of my player side problems, but I’m a lot more interested in narrativist games which are built to scratch the itch of what I really want to run: games which organically create the sort of scenes and play that resemble the novels I enjoy reading.

 

[Tonguez]

If ok, talk a little bit about what was not great about 5e, and how FATE helped?

I much prefer the easy customizability of FATE, especially Accelerated where approaches can express a characters personality while doing things (how they act), and because everything is aspects characters get to interact with scenes in creative ways, building their own advantage v a challenge. I know some people dont like the idea of using fate points, but I like the social aspect of the 'bidding game'

DnD is too crunchy for me, which is ironic since I prefer 3.5 to 5e, 5e just seems to be both too casual and to have too many it doesnt allow a character to do or be without houserule tweaking. A better skill system would help. I do like the advantage/disadvantage system though

 

[Scott Christian]

90% is a pretty solid number for positive votes. It makes me happy that so many people are happy at their gaming table.

 

[payn]

If you don't mind talking about it, what about 5e is personally rubbing you the wrong way? And what do you mean by "tightly engineered?"

5E doesn't rub me the wrong way. Its just not enough. I want more adventures, more feats, more sub-classes, more sub-systems,...just more. I was hopeful about modularity during the NEXT playtest. I thought I would get my more once a good base was designed, but thats just not in the cards. That said, I think 5E is a good base and likely right where it needs to be for D&D. Accessible to the most folks without being too much. The not enough is a me thing; not a 5E thing.

For PF2, the +x/level and <10> crit system creates what I like to call a "must be this tall to ride" effect. Combats are set to your watch predictable. Within a few rolls of combat I know exactly how that fight is going to go. Some folks find that refreshing, there is a lot of complaints about 5E for not having a accurate CR. On one hand, this system does make solos possible and engaging fights. On the other it sets a ceiling that is too low for my taste. I am curious about experimenting with the level without proficiency variant rule. I think it might allow a slightly better band of possible encounters that PF2 doesnt currently. Again, this is a me thing; not a PF2 thing.

Further thoughts on PF2, I am not a big fan of tactical combat systems like 4E/PF2. I prefer quicker combat like that of 3E/PF1/5E where more thought lies in the strategy than the tactics. I like all classes MAD, not all classes SAD design. I am not a fan of hybrid multiclassing at all, and its even worse in PF2 becasue multiclassing competes with archetypes! (This can be allievitaed a bit with the free archetype variant which is very popular in PF2 groups.) I do think that PF2 is a fine game, and Paizo is a great company, but I just have preferences that lean out of the chosen design space.

 

[payn]

I dislike the skill system, the complexity of spell casting, reactive saving throws, tendency towards static combat, preponderance of save vs suck abilities, limitations on martial flexibility, lack of a baseline fail-forward mechanism, core assumptions presented in most APs/campaigns that shape the culture, deeply simplistic and hard to gauge monster system (as the plethora of 3rd party options indicate), amount of DM work the game expects to fix things…

Oh, thats a good one I forgot in my 5E summary. Boring skill system thats almost no skill system at all.

 

[Blue]

I am playing/running multiple systems. The one that I currently feeling "forced" because of the group is 5e. And I put somewhat unsatisfied.

A lot of it is fatigue. This group does 5e almost exclusively. It's a good system, but I've played so much of it that both the ruleset and the (sub)genre need a rest before I do more it. And after this amount of time the warts in the system chaff. The 50th Anniversary revamp is leaving me with split feelings - I'm excited for some of the changes, like to Monk and Ranger, but at the same time it's basically the same system I'm worn out on, and it won't address my biggest problems (inter-class balance is all wrong based on low numbers encounters per long rest based on both how I and the other main GM run, and short rest classes are also off, to the point I won't play one in his group).

The fact that this isn't an edition change to something new and instead is just continuing my system fatigue puts me off D&D more than I realized. Not because the system is old, but because I've played so much of it and want to play things different, but others in my group want to play D&D so both can only be satisfied if D&D turns the crank to a full new edition.

 

[R_J_K75]

• 5e was a bit too easy on the PCs, not enough challenge/danger
• 5e rules were spread out/poorly organized/hard to find

Correct, IMO

• 5e required too much work to create an adventure

too much work to create "meaningful and challenging" adventures. As players characters advanced it becomes increasingly difficult to keep up and remember all the options they took and then create adventures that were in line with those options and the rules of the games. Seemed I usually spent as much time on story and plot as I did looking up rules. The CR system never seemed to work out for me. This was my experience; others may not have this problem.

• Modern AGE and Shadowdark were hard to make the shift to from the previous mindset

Yes. Shadowdark more so than Modern AGE

• Shadowdark felt too rules lite.

Yes. At first glance it seemed refreshingly lite, but in play there were more than a few blanks to fill in. I think it could have benefited if it were an 8-1/2" x 11" book with smaller margins/font and a few more pages to include a little more material. It's not a bad game by any means and will probably improve with more supplements.