D&D 5E Is 5e really that different?

[Vaalingrade]

Oh I think there was some good work in the essentials line. We had a good time adding and essentials slayer to our party.

I’ve always get 4e would have done better if they had started with essentials and the moved to the full AEDU / PHB format

I think there is a place for both

The Slayer is the reason I can't abide by Essentials. It made fighters 'simple' and boring gain.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The Slayer is the reason I can't abide by Essentials. It made fighters 'simple' and boring gain.

Sometimes that is what people want. We had both a fighter and a slayer in our group. It is nice to have options IMO. What the slayer liked was that they were a striker instead of a tank.

 

[Thunderfoot]

The least amounts of 4e the better. The skills were that systems only saving grace, the rest was... well. Unnecessary.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Skill system was the worst part. No granularity, just pick and never engage for the rest campaign.

 

[Hussar]

That could very well be true. Like I said, "from what I understand" because I never played 4E and only glimpsed at the rule books once when I had the chance.


5E is not at all a return to "classic" D&D though, however it might be more a return to 3E?

It's more along the lines of "stealth 4e" at least mechanically. It is most definitely closer to 4e in mechanics than any other version of D&D. Granted, it shaved off lots of stuff from 4e as well. But, the basic chasis is most certainly there.

But, I do agree with you here that 5e shares pretty much nothing mechanically with "classic D&D". What it does share though, is quite a lot of the flavor stuff. Heck, the first, what, 8 out of 10 big adventures for 5e, the yearly releases I mean, were either straight up reprints and updates (Tales of the Yawning Portal, Ghosts of Saltmarsh) or at the very least very, very heavily inspired by classic adventures - Strahd, Against the Giants, that sort of thing. It isn't until pretty recently that we're actually getting original adventure ideas.

 

[Aldarc]

The Slayer is the reason I can't abide by Essentials. It made fighters 'simple' and boring gain.

Sometimes that is what people want. We had both a fighter and a slayer in our group. It is nice to have options IMO. What the slayer liked was that they were a striker instead of a tank.

If I were to revise 4e, I would consider changing the roles to more closely harken to the roles found in MOBAs. For example, the Fighter wouldn't be called either a "Striker" or a "Defender," but, rather, a "Bruiser."

 

[Rikka66]

5E is not at all a return to "classic" D&D though, however it might be more a return to 3E?

The reason I used quotation marks because it seemed to be an eye(s) of the beholder thing. I've seen 5e lauded as a much heralded return to 1e, 2e, and 3e. But that's a sentiment that hasn't come around as much in recent years.

Sometimes that is what people want. We had both a fighter and a slayer in our group. It is nice to have options IMO. What the slayer liked was that they were a striker instead of a tank.

It's an area 4e might have been served better by taking an even bigger page from MMO's. A warrior in WoW can be either a striker (dps) or defender (tank). A fighter in 4e is a defender that can lean more towards striker or controller. The former is more obviously flexible and feels like a more consequential choice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The reason I used quotation marks because it seemed to be an eye(s) of the beholder thing. I've seen 5e lauded as a much heralded return to 1e, 2e, and 3e. But that's a sentiment that hasn't come around as much in recent years.

It's an area 4e might have been served better by taking an even bigger page from MMO's. A warrior in WoW can be either a striker (dps) or defender (tank). A fighter in 4e is a defender that can lean more towards striker or controller. The former is more obviously flexible and feels like a more consequential choice.

There were plenty of martial striker options. This seems hung up on making sure something called a "fighter" gets both options.

 

[BryonD]

I like 5E less and less as time goes by. But I still think it is a good game. And I very strongly agree with the sentiments that it is the greatest version of D&D ever.
Other versions are better for me personally. But 5E is head and shoulders above everything else in the mission of delivering the most fun to the most people.

 

[dave2008]

The biggest change in D&D (IMO) over the years was the d20 shift to 3E. In many ways, it really became a different game and personally I wish they had called it something else. But, I understand the importance of brand names, so I get why they stuck with D&D...

From what I understand, 4E went too far in overcomplicating things, and so 5E went too far back in over simplifying things, and hopefully 6E will swing the pendulum back the other way, but slow it down.

Another big change when 3E came along as in the spirit of the game. 3E felt completely different to me than AD&D and prior editions. I don't get that sort of difference in feel between 3E and 5E, for instance.

I can't speak to 3e as I skipped 2e & 3e, but 5e (and to a slightly lesser extent 4e) captured the spirit of 1e for me and my group. That is why we still play D&D