D&D 5E My Players Didn't Like 5e :( Help Me Get Them Into It!!

[Uchawi]

5e is the most fun edition of D&D for me, which is why I play it, but:

1. I am all about player and DM agency being on equal footings, since I view the DM as the first among equals. I can't stand DM's who just love house ruling things for the sake of house ruling things. 5e pushes agency firmly in the hands of the DM, which I don't like. I've seen otherwise good DM's take this to heart and do silly (IMO) things like house rule action surge, sneak attack, all sorts of things. This happened in older editions sure, but there was less agency for DM's to do so.
2. Many parts of 5e decrease workload, which is great, but some parts of 5e needlessly increase workload. The DMG was a big disappointment to me in this regard. I want more crunch around things like encounter tables, traps, diseases, etc, instead of just a hand-wave and "You figure it out, you're the DM!".
3. I started playing D&D with AD&D 2nd Edition. All the editions I have played have been quite rules heavy (AD&D 2e had a table for everything, 3rd Edition, 4th edition both rules heavy). I don't know a D&D where it's rules light and based on improvisation instead of rules.

I get why it's the all the rage, I really do. I'm just not a fan of that component personally. I don't view D&D from the lens that you're living out this grand story. Honestly, if I wanted that experience I'd spend my time reading a fantastic novel, or get engrossed in one of the amazing stories that many CRPGs on the market tell.

D&D to me is still a game, it has dice, it has rules. The less rules the less of a game it is, and the more of interactive story time it becomes. I like playing games, not story time, so that really is the core of the issue why I am a fan of rules not rulings.

I can really sympathize with the OP's group. I really do. I hated 5e in principal when I first read it. But since playing it I have found it to be really fun. The positives outweigh the negatives.
5e better watch out though if pathfinder come out with a more streamlined version that decreases combat time, and borrows many of the fun things about 5e, while retaining player agency and crunch.

I would buy it, if it placed martial characters on an equal playing field. 5E was so close, then it punted.

 

[Celtavian]

I would buy it, if it placed martial characters on an equal playing field. 5E was so close, then it punted.

This is one of the things that brought me back. I don't think martial characters should be on equal footing with casters. That's not a fantasy genre trope. The only game I've seen this to be important is an MMORPG with PVP.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is one of the things that brought me back. I don't think martial characters should be on equal footing with casters. That's not a fantasy genre trope. The only game I've seen this to be important is an MMORPG with PVP.

It seems to me that the lasting, and painfully unfortunate, legacy of 3e D&D is going to be the indelible mark on gamers' perceptions that "non-magic" is strictly inferior to magic, regardless of the fact that it's a fantasy universe where designers can make things be whatever they wish them to be. Non-magic characters held their own, in ages past, and then again in ages recent, but too many people are dead set on opposing it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is one of the things that brought me back. I don't think martial characters should be on equal footing with casters.

Thank you for your honesty.

That's not a fantasy genre trope.

The trope is more barbarian leaps across room and cuts sorcerer in half before he can mumble any spells, but yeah. A lot of D&D tropes are at odd with genre: because of the needs of a game vs a novel (or legend), and because of the irreverent time in which it was conceived, the personalities of its creators, and attitudes of its fanbase.

It seems to me that the lasting, and painfully unfortunate, legacy of 3e D&D is going to be the indelible mark on gamers' perceptions that "non-magic" is strictly inferior to magic

That's not so crazy, in the context of thousand year old necromancer vs peasant mob. Martial heroics being useless in the face of/without aid of magic, is probably a little unfortunate, though.

But you can't blame in on 3e, it was firmly entrenched by then.

 

[Celtavian]

It seems to me that the lasting, and painfully unfortunate, legacy of 3e D&D is going to be the indelible mark on gamers' perceptions that "non-magic" is strictly inferior to magic, regardless of the fact that it's a fantasy universe where designers can make things be whatever they wish them to be. Non-magic characters held their own, in ages past, and then again in ages recent, but too many people are dead set on opposing it.

It was this way back to the time that casters could do above 3rd level spells. High level casters were always constructed with the idea that they would be able to alter the world with magic making them more powerful than martials. It is a fantasy genre trope whether it be Merlin, The Dragon Reborn, the various sorcerers in Conan, Elric, Alanon, Gandalf, and the list is nearly endless. Magic is mysterious, powerful, and virtually unlimited.

I don't understand why so many have such a problem with it in a game that is supposed to mirror the fantasy genre. Is it because you don't read fantasy books? Or because you prefer a game be balanced?

 

[Celtavian]

Thank you for your honesty.

The trope is more barbarian leaps across room and cuts sorcerer in half before he can mumble any spells, but yeah. A lot of D&D tropes are at odd with genre: because of the needs of a game vs a novel (or legend), and because of the irreverent time in which it was conceived, the personalities of its creators, and attitudes of its fanbase.

That's not so crazy, in the context of thousand year old necromancer vs peasant mob. Martial heroics being useless in the face of/without aid of magic, is probably a little unfortunate, though.

But you can't blame in on 3e, it was firmly entrenched by then.

Glad you acknowledge it has been entrenched for a lot longer than 3E. It's been this way since I played using the 1st PHB with the Efreeti statue on the cover. Basic and Expert were pretty balanced. Once they integrated higher levels, the game was never balanced caster versus martial. It was accepted by most old gamers I played with. It was expected because so many of us were coming to the game to play our favorite book characters. I imagine in this new age with video game players coming to the game, they prefer balance. MMOs are extremely balanced. I know anime is now a strong influence. Anime martials are more like superheroes than the traditional Launcelot-style fighter or Conan-style barbarian. That is a different style of play. Some cite mythology, but mythology often involved half-gods and that is a different style of play requiring a different game. Most martial classes were designed around the idea of playing a Launcelot or Conan working with a Merlin or similarly powerful wizard or priest.

It's never been because casters are inherently stronger than martials, but because magic is inherently more powerful than martial abilities. If martials accomplished exactly what wizards are doing, then what does that make magic? If a martial can cut holes in the universe, he is essentially using magic, not martial acts. So that means magic would have no unique presence in the universe. There would be no need for a wizard or priest class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Glad you acknowledge it has been entrenched for a lot longer than 3E. It's been this way since I played using the 1st PHB with the Efreeti statue on the cover. Once they integrated higher levels, the game was never balanced caster versus martial. It was accepted by most old gamers I played with.

0D&D had higher levels, too.

I imagine in this new age with video game players coming to the game, they prefer balance. MMOs are extremely balanced.

I'm not into MMOs or video games, myself. But, no, by the same token that anti-martialism/caster-supremacy isn't a new prejudice, balance is not a new concern, it's mentioned repeatedly in that same 1e DMG, for instance.

Most martial classes were designed around the idea of playing a Launcelot or Conan working with a Merlin or similarly powerful wizard or priest.

Just look at what Merlin - and the few cleric archetypes called out, for instance, in the 2e PH - actually did.

Sadly, the development of classes had as much to do with wargames as genre. Fighters were based on infantry, wizards on artillery, for instance. Merlin didn't defilade himself behind the front line and lob fireballs at the enemy. D&D wizards still do.

If martials are accomplished exactly what wizards are doing, then what does that make magic?

That's a very hypothetical question, since it's never happened in any edition of D&D. But, balance doesn't require two different player options doing exactly the same things (indeed, it precludes that), just equally viable things in the context of play.

To illustrate how bad it's been, try turning that question around. The Tier 1 classes (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) in 3e core /could/ accomplish everything the martial classes could, and often better than they could. I believe the fighter was, what, Tier 5?

Clearly, there's no point in a class that another class obviates that way.

In 5e, as in 2e, the fighter clings to viability via overwhelmingly high DPR (which also helps 5e with the 'fast combat' goal - ironically, rendering the fighter's sole contribution that little bit less significant). Far from a perfect solution, but better than Tier 5 irrelevance.

Of course, the 5e fighter also casts spells.

 

[Celtavian]

Just look at what Merlin - and the few cleric archetypes called out, for instance, in the 2e PH - actually did.

Sadly, the development of classes had as much to do with wargames as genre. Fighters were based on infantry, wizards on artillery, for instance. Merlin didn't defilade himself behind the front line and lob fireballs at the enemy. D&D wizards still do.

Depends on which version of Merlin you're reading. He was capable of killing people from afar with a spell. You didn't mess with Merlin. Knights did not try to fight Merlin. Merlin seated a king on the throne and managed him. Merlin considered himself a manipulator of man's affairs. He knew men would follow someone like Arhtur they understood rather than someone like Merlin that they didn't. Everyone feared Merlin.

It is that relative fear that I believe D&D tries to foster through its system. Martials kill casters all the time. They fear them and do not go against them lightly.

I admit 3E took the caster-martial disparity way too far in the caster direction. 5E is a much better wheelhouse for the disparity. Casters can do some crazy stuff. Martials can kill them far easier than 3E. A caster has to be extremely careful in 5E. There is plenty of stuff he can't defeat. The martial-caster dependency is much stronger than it was in 3E.

The martial-caster dependency is also part of the fantasy genre. Magic is supposed to be limited and dangerous. Martials can do their thing without those concerns making them more reliable doers of deeds.

That's a very hypothetical question, since it's never happened in any edition of D&D. But, balance doesn't require two different player options doing exactly the same things (indeed, it precludes that), just equally viable things in the context of play.

To illustrate how bad it's been, try turning that question around. The Tier 1 classes (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) in 3e core /could/ accomplish everything the martial classes could, and often better than they could. I believe the fighter was, what, Tier 5?

Clearly, there's no point in a class that another class obviates that way.

In 5e, as in 2e, the fighter clings to viability via overwhelmingly high DPR (which also helps 5e with the 'fast combat' goal - ironically, rendering the fighter's sole contribution that little bit less significant). Far from a perfect solution, but better than Tier 5 irrelevance.

Of course, the 5e fighter also casts spells.

3E was over the top. I had to do a lot as a DM to maintain caster-martial dependency. I did take steps to ensure it. I prefer the 5E-2E overwhelming DPR and highly magic resistant creatures to the 3E paradigm. Caster-martial dependency is part of the fantasy genre. If either one obviates the other, then you lose something in the genre. What would Merlin be without Arthur? Or Gandalf without Aragorn or the Hobbits? Gotta have that dependency to drive the story meaning everyone brings something to the table that is needed.

The fighter brings very reliable, consistent fighting prowess with DPR and durability.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Depends on which version of Merlin you're reading.

I'm thinking classic version. Like most wizards or the like in legend, Merlin was a seer. In some versions he engaged in creating illusions or shape-changing, powers commonly attributed to Celtic Druids, from which he was likely derived.

He didn't throw balls of fire or bolts of lighting or turn into an Anis hag and rip knights to pieces or anything remotely along the lines of what D&D wizards do on a daily basis.

Knights did not try to fight Merlin. Merlin seated a king on the throne and managed him. Merlin considered himself a manipulator of man's affairs. He knew men would follow someone like Arhtur they understood rather than someone like Merlin that they didn't. Everyone feared Merlin.

Of course, consider that none of that required magical powers. Knights didn't challenge old men to duels. Cunning manipulators have put men on thrones, been the power behind them, and engendered fear in the community without having any magical powers whatsoever.

It is that relative fear that I believe D&D tries to foster through its system.

That's where it tries to go with monsters and other antagonists, sure. PC wizards & clerics probably shouldn't be inspiring that sort of reaction from their allies.

I admit 3E took the caster-martial disparity way too far in the caster direction. 5E is a much better wheelhouse for the disparity.

But, it's still a disparity. 5e aimed to be lack the classic game, the classic game was imbalanced, but could be slapped into shape by the DM. So, 5e doesn't bother with balance, but does push DM empowerment.

If either one obviates the other, then you lose something in the genre. What would Merlin be without Arthur? Or Gandalf without Aragorn or the Hobbits? Gotta have that dependency to drive the story meaning everyone brings something to the table that is needed.

Nod. Those are the 'iconic roles' that D&D has always had. Fighter, Cleric, Magic-user, Thief. In 3e, Tier 1 classes did obviate the others. In 4e, they were neatly balanced, no class obviated another, and party interdependence and synergy were well supported. In 5e, the iconic 'big 4' classes still have their traditional roles, but some of the other classes are more questionable - and the emphasis on casting is overwhelming. Every class uses magic. Even the fighters cast spells...

It's interesting. Back in the 3.5 era, on the Gleemax, I think the Wizard's form was, at the time, there were a lot of "Fighter SUX" threads. One of the things it would come down to, from my PoV, was that the nature of magic vs martial in traditional D&D - the former being limited-use and powerful, the latter unlimited and underpowered - made balancing the classes impossible. Doing so would require either re-designing classes to all be like the fighter (the 3e fighter was a neat, customizeable design) or all be like Vancian casters. Both seemed unthinkable.

5e has very nearly taken me up on that last alternative: Every class has at least one sub-class that uses magic, and virtually all of those, including a fighter and thief sub-class, do so by casting spells.

The fighter brings very reliable, consistent fighting prowess with DPR and durability.

Yeah, prettymuch back to the 2e model. Except for the EK alluded to, above, of course.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think the OP's only hope is that the one guy he quoted does not reflect the view of everyone else in the group. Poll your group and find out if it does. If so, you're not going to be playing 5E with these guys. You're not going to convince them they're wrong about the game - the points listed were accurate, they just don't like them. They've already given the game a try in actual play, so that's out. Your choices come down to 1) play 5E with different people, 2) keep DMing your previous game, or 3) hand the DM seat over to someone else and play in their preferred game.