D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Warpiglet-7]

Well this discussion has made me question some assumptions so good on folks with differing opinions.

I am gearing up to DM more and so have been going back to the books and really reading carefully.

I am struck by a few things. First, I think the rules themselves are clearer than I previously did. Maybe in spite of presentation at times.

Secondly, I don’t find the layout or rather presentation is as clear as it could be. For me, good rules, but the order and presentation was not helpful.

I would have liked a chart showing what you can do in a turn including examples of bonus actions and reactions.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree with this, however that said it's the same mental model because (nearly) all classes were structured in the same way. So all had a power you used 1x a day, all had Y powers you used every encounter and then there were powers you used at-will regardless of your class. In other words while the individual powers were different in there effects, the high level model for picking them and how often they could be used were the same. I don't think any other D&D homogenized this for all classes in the way 4e did.

NOTE: I also don't think the way the 4e books were formatted did any favors in this are either... lists of powers and mirrored structure tended to give it an all running together, kinda it's all the same feel. IMO.

Sure. I’ve realized over the years that “samey” doesn’t actually mean what it seems like it would mean. It just means “stuff that runs together and folks eyes glaze over when trying to parse out the particulars”.

 

[Imaro]

The problem.of the past was that player facing stuff was in super niche stuff. You had to buy a whole book of a theme you won't touch again.

This doesn't seem correct... Maybe I'm mistaken but in past editions you'd get something like a book specialized for fighters (AD&D/3e), martial powers (4e). or something similar which seems specific and focused on one theme. Now it seems the books are geared more towards a smorgasbord of topics (Xanthars, Tashas) in a single tome... or am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?

 

[Parmandur]

I’m still struggling to see how fighter, warlord, wizard, cleric, and ranger, powers are remotely similar. They do completely different things.

Cleric and Warlord are more same-y than those others, as you chose from the different combat roles. Which are technically different

I agree with this, however that said it's the same mental model because (nearly) all classes were structured in the same way. So all had a power you used 1x a day, all had Y powers you used every encounter and then there were powers you used at-will regardless of your class. In other words while the individual powers were different in there effects, the high level model for picking them and how often they could be used were the same. I don't think any other D&D homogenized this for all classes in the way 4e did.

NOTE: I also don't think the way the 4e books were formatted did any favors in this are either... lists of powers and mirrored structure tended to give it an all running together, kinda it's all the same feel. IMO.

This says what I feel more clearly.

The hype behind books are from players. Strixhaven lost hype when the subclasses were cut. TCOE and XGTE are sales driven by player facing stuff.

The problem.of the past was that player facing stuff was in super niche stuff. You had to buy a whole book of a theme you won't touch again.

5e doesn't have the same demo as 1e 2e 3e and 4e.

Don't use the past to speculate the present as present D&D fans act very different from past ones.

People are people, and not everything changes across generations. "The DM buys all the books" appears to be a perennial truth, which WotC thought they could solve in 3E and 4E, but have now simply embraced.

Not aure whybyou think that Strixhaven wasn't successful, in particular. The sales data that is available seems positove.5

Sure. I’ve realized over the years that “samey” doesn’t actually mean what it seems like it would mean. It just means “stuff that runs together and folks eyes glaze over when trying to parse out the particulars”.

So, it's like this: Weetabix comes in a large variety of flavors and styles, and I am sure people enjoy Weetabix can go on and on about the differences. It all tastes like Weetabix to me. More power to anyone who enjoys it, but it's not for me.

 

[Minigiant]

This doesn't seem correct... Maybe I'm mistaken but in past editions you'd get something like a book specialized for fighters (AD&D/3e), martial powers (4e). or something similar which seems specific and focused on one theme. Now it seems the books are geared more towards a smorgasbord of topics (Xanthars, Tashas) in a single tome... or am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?

I'd say the issue is twofold.

The old editions made player forced stuff too niche. If you didn't like playing mages, you wouldn't buy the mage book. You only only buy the ice book of you want an ice player

Also, the younger players and DMs of today are less likely to repeat the same kind of campaign for my experience. So niche stuff might not get a second look for a looooooing time.

 

[Parmandur]

I'd say the issue is twofold.

The old editions made player forced stuff too niche. If you didn't like playing mages, you wouldn't buy the mage book. You only only buy the ice book of you want an ice player

Also, the younger players and DMs of today are less likely to repeat the same kind of campaign for my experience. So niche stuff might not get a second look for a looooooing time.

It never did, it was a failed product strategy. Hence the smorgasbord approach aimed at DMs now.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Cleric and Warlord are more same-y than those others, as you chose from the different combat roles. Which are technically different

They are objectively more different than fighters and rogues in 5e, or 3.5.

Beyond that, they’re wildly different from eachother.

So, it's like this: Weetabix comes in a large variety of flavors and styles, and I am sure people enjoy Weetabix can go on and on about the differences. It all tastes like Weetabix to me. More power to anyone who enjoys it, but it's not for me.

I’ve no idea what a weetabix is. From the perspective of people who disagree with you, you’re saying that all the ice cream at Baskin Robbins is “samey” because it’s all ice cream and it all comes in the same containers.

It’s an actively counterproductive term that essentially has no coherent meaning.

like if you’re engaging with the mechanics of the classes…it is objectively false to say that any two classes pre-essentials are all that similar in play. You have to zoom out to a point where you aren’t engaging with any specific mechanics to get meaningful similarity between Come and Get It and almost any rogue power. “I use an encounter power” is just a weird at you play. If engaging with the powers mechanically, you are doing extremely different things.

 

[Parmandur]

They are objectively more different than fighters and rogues in 5e, or 3.5.

Beyond that, they’re wildly different from eachother.

There are no classes in 4E as different as the 5E Warlock and Rogue. The Rogue and Fighter are closer together, but still less same-y.

I’ve no idea what a weetabix is.

Lucky you: change that to oatmeal, or whatever sort of food that is not to your own tastes.

From the perspective of people who disagree with you, you’re saying that all the ice cream at Baskin Robbins is “samey” because it’s all ice cream and it all comes in the same containers.

It’s an actively counterproductive term that essentially has no coherent meaning.

like if you’re engaging with the mechanics of the classes…it is objectively false to say that any two classes pre-essentials are all that similar in play. You have to zoom out to a point where you aren’t engaging with any specific mechanics to get meaningful similarity between Come and Get It and almost any rogue power. “I use an encounter power” is just a weird at you play. If engaging with the powers mechanically, you are doing extremely different things.

For anyone who dislikes ice cream, it would indeed rather all be same-y, that's my point. I use same-y precisely because it isn’t technical, but conveys the phenomenological experience of 4E Classes that I have gone through.

 

[glass]

The lack of a shared power is a different issue, which is also a problem

So, classes are all the same, but are also completely different and that is also a problem?

I’m still struggling to see how fighter, warlord, wizard, cleric, and ranger, powers are remotely similar. They do completely different things.

4e is the enemy. As long as you are criticising it, you are signalling to the world (or yourself) that you are on the "right" side. Whether those criticisms are factually accurate or even self-consistent is beside the point.

There are no classes in 4E as different as the 5E Warlock and Rogue. The Rogue and Fighter are closer together, but still less same-y.

That first point is debatable. The second is so clearly nonsense that I wish I could say it was surprising, but of course it isn't.

_
glass.

 

[Parmandur]

So, classes are all the same, but are also completely different and that is also a problem?

Well, actually, yes, though again you are confusing two different issues. Structurally, the AEDU setup is rigid and provides a uniform experiment Class to Class. Separately, the insistence of creating an individual "Power" for each and every thing any Class does without any repeats leads to loads of fiddley bits yhst would be better served by a uniform Spell list that different Classes can share. So, indeed, 4E Classes are homogenous where difference would be appreciated, while being heterogeneous where sharing resources would be helpful.in practice. Two vital lessons that WotC carried forwards into modern Dungeons & Dragons.

4e is the enemy. As long as you are criticising it, you are signalling to the world (or yourself) that you are on the "right" side. Whether those criticisms are factually accurate or even self-consistent is beside the point.

Nope, not an enemy, just an interesting old experiment that can shed some light on modern Dungeons & Dragons.