D&D 5E So 5E is the Successor to AD&D 2nd Edition? How and How Not?

Just reading the game books (particularly the character creation part of the PHBs) certainly makes the games seem like different attempts at the same thing, but when they play out, or certainly when you DM them, there certainly seem to be a lot of dissimilarities that show up -- enough for me to say that they don't stand out as more alike than other edition to edition comparisons.
It's kind of like how 1e and 2e look neigh identical if you don't factor in how much the optional-rule stuff (especially xp options) or play-pattern focus can change how the game plays (or perhaps similar to GURPS and Hero System look so similar when reading character creation, but decidedly reward different playstyles).
Again, not saying this is wrong or that there are not obvious similarities, just that there are contraindicators as well.

You say that.

But to me, it feels like the designers, especially the current ones, expected you to run 5e like 3e but replaced all the ultra simulationist rules with Ad/Disadv.

It's the whole "5E doesn't require magic items but if you don't use magic items the game warps and barely is balanced unless you go through extra work to do so "

5e was simplified to run like 2e but designed to be played like streamlined simplified 3e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You’re absolutely right, Ezekiel. About everything. I no longer have the time, inclination, or spoons to deal with your essay-length broadsides that fill any thread where someone mentions 4e, let alone criticizes any one of its possible shortcomings. You’ve made another forum unbearable for me with your refusal to let go of a fight that was tiring a decade ago.

Time to leave ENWorld again. Maybe I’ll see some of you guys in 10 years when the next edition drops.
You know, you could always just not read their posts or put them on Ignore.

If you're going to completely stop reading EN World because of one person... that pretty much is an indicator you don't actually want to hang out here at all regardless of what that one poster writes. So they have no reason to feel guilty about anything (if that was your intent.)
 


AD&D 2nd edition is at my nostalgic core for TTRPGs.
I agree. 2E was not my introduction to D&D but its the edition I look back on with the most nostalgia. We played the hell out of it; 12-16 hour sessions a few times a week, pickup games on a whim, and everyone I played with at the time all read books for PC creation, lore, and settings.
Do you think 5e feels like 2nd edition?
No not at all, at least to me. Two things come to mind which were a standout in 2E that are missing from 5E. Specialty priests and specialty wizards and the monster design.

Specialty priest, especially the 3 FR books, Faiths & Avatars, Powers & Pantheons, and Deities and Demigods, were home runs. Added a level of detail to the class not seen before or since.

The monster design gave so much more detail that again hadn't been seen before or since. The ecology, habitat, society entries gave the DM so much more to build off of than just treating monster as a bunch of HP and something to be killed. Things such as frequency, number appearing, morale, activity cycle etc just added minor points to the creature that when taken as a whole made monster a lot more interesting, Throughout the edition there was quite a few creature entries that were that weren't meant to be adversaries to the players, some were just kind of meant to be in the background but still have an effect. The Disenchanter comes to mind. Because of these omissions, the game is worse for it. Just my 2 cents. Regardless of what edition one plays I believe that every DM should at least own a copy of the 2E AD&D hardcover Monstrous Manual, if they don't go full out and buy all the monstrous compendium appendices.
 

As an avowed 4e fan and longtime 5e critic: nothing about 5.5e makes it in any observable way more like 4e. I'm really not sure why you would get that impression. Like I find it truly baffling that you would make such a comparison.

It definitely doesn't make me like 5e more than I did before. Well, other than the changes to Warlock. Those were pretty cool and I did reasonably enjoy using them, even if I was chafing against the system in general.

Okay, I'll give you details. I don't expect (or want) these to change your general impression. Fans of certain elements see their presence or absence more strongly than those who are indifferent to those elements. I expect that you notice the absence of the things you like about 4e, and don't notice the gradual introduction of 4e elements that you are indifferent about or don't see as defining parts of 4e. For someone who doesn't like some of these elements, they very much stand out to me.

And I should note, that my attitude is not the same for every element I'll bring up. The presence of the collection of the ones I dislike is a strong contribution to my personal deal-breakers for 2024. However, I am indifferent to some of these points. The list isn't "what I dislike about 2024", it is "things in D&D post 2014 that are shifts to being more like 4e". I will stick to things that are as objectively observable as possible. You, will in some cases, be able to find limited amounts of some of these in the original 5e PHB, DMG, or MM, in which case the change is one of relative quantity. Others are completely absent from the original 5e and showed up some time afterwards.

NPC Statblocks
In original 5e NPC statblocks were essentially simplified versions of PC class characters. They didn't have all the features. Their hit points were a little higher, but they they lacked damage mitigation features like Second Wind or Uncanny Dodge, so it evened out if you assumed it represented those features. But they cast spells in the same way, used the same weapons, etc. With extremely rare exceptions (only one major one comes to mind in the MM) they did not have features for which PC classes and feats couldn't provide equivalents, unless there was a supernatural explanation like being a demon cultist, etc. They were slightly simplified ways of presenting the same kinds of features that PCs had. You could take an NPC statblock and rebuild it as an actual PC and you wouldn't lose any "NPC-only" special abilities.1
Here's how this evolved to include more 4e elements.
-NPC hit points increased significantly2, much like NPCs in 4e had relatively more hit points than PCs compared to earlier editions.
-Spellcasting on NPCs intended to represent completely normal spellcasters is now presented as a monster ability unlike PC spellcasting, granting them capabilities that PC casters cannot attain.3
-NPC statblocks have attacks4 and weapons5 that PCs have no way of gaining or approximating.

Presentation
Various elements of presentation, whether functional or cosmetic, have shifted to be more like 4e.
-Monster entries in the 2024 Monster Manual look significantly more like the entries in the 4e Monster Manuals than the entries in the 2014 MM look like the 4e MMs.6
-Spells in the 2024 PHB have shorter formats, excising some lore and flavor in favor of using key words.
-Class entries in the 2024 PHB greatly reduce the word count of the opening prose, and add a new initial "Core Features" table very reminiscent of the "Class Traits" table I'm looking at in the 4e PHB.
-The 2024 DMG order of presentation has DMing advice and Running the Game sections at the start, like the 4e DMG (in contrast with the 2014 DMG that has most of that in the last part and opens instead with world-building), and even replaces the chapter name "Dungeon Master's Workshop" with the exact 4e name "DM's Toolbox".
-More information presented in formats visually distinct from the standard text body, such as tables, in general. Just look anywhere and you'll see things that were just written out in prose in 2014 5e presented in a table in 2024.

General Mechanics
-Drinking potions is a bonus action in 2024, like it was in 4e.7
-Monsters (similar to NPCs) have more unique supernatural attacks and features in place of standard spellcasting.
-Summoning actual creatures using the same monster statblocks you would encounter is mostly8 eliminated. In its place you either create effects, or unique summon statblocks that live inside the spell itself and presumably are not encountered "naturally" in the wild, so to speak.
-Adding magical properties to weapons sometimes straight up replaces their damage rather than adding to it.9
-The Bloodied condition.

Those are all elements that I didn't have to think hard about. There are others that are more philosophical (and therefore less objectively provable), and others that I'm not recalling off of the top of my head, but notice when I see them.

Again, these may not matter to 4e-fans who don't consider those defining 4e traits, but for those who specifically disliked (and I would assume also for those who liked) 4e partly for some of those elements, it very much stands out as a shift towards 4e.


1 - For example, the Veteran and Knight are simplified 5th-level fighters, the Assassin is a simplified 7th-level TWF Assassin Rogue with wyvern poison (see DMG p. 258). The Mage is a simplified 9th-level wizard, while the Archmage is a simplified 18th-level Abjurer wizard. The one stand out exception is the Priest, which is a simplified 5th-level cleric, but has a paladin-like smite ability that no clerics have any way of gaining access to.
2 - For example, the Archmage goes from 99 hit points to 170, and the Assassin goes from 78 to 97.
3 - My "favorite" (because it was the first one I was really paying attention to and stood out like crazy) example among the universal codified changes is the NPC sorcerer (based on highest level spell known, one might assume 10th-level, but there is no way of knowing) Kelek from Wild Beyond the Witchlight. He not only uses the new spellcasting format that eschews spell slots in lieu of At-Wills (which can include non-cantrips, but don't in his case) and X/Day spells, he also has a unique Sorcerer's Bolt spell that does as much damage as a scaled cantrip (at his assumed possible level), but which he can cast three times in a round, for a total at-will damage output of 6d12. Most 2024 NPC casters have similar "super-cantrip" like attacks.
4 - The revised Assassin now makes three attacks (rogue's can't do that) and their damage values are ad hoc monster design rather than weapons plus sneak attack plus poison configurations. The originally simplified 4th-level Lore bard from Volo's Guide to Monsters, which in the Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse version now not only has the new monster spellcasting, but can make two attacks with a bow (bard's can't do that), potentially replacing one with casting any spell in their trait, and a brand new fairly significant combat ability not found in any bard subclass then or since.
5 - See, for example, how various Githyanki and Githzerai (which are PC species) NPCs get to add large amounts of psychic damage to their weapon attacks.
6 - Just open all 3 books up to "Azer". I haven't read through the 2024 MM, but I assume it's a fairly typical entry. The 5e version has almost half a page of lore written in prose with a few bold text blurbs beginning paragraphs, and a statblock, the Azer. The 4e MM has a little bit of lore, 5 statblocks (from Azer Warrior to Azer Beastlord), and some set off gaming information like the exact lore you get with a skill check DC, and encounter groups. The 2024 MM has one sentence of general lore, two statblocks, and some gaming material set off (Habitat and Treasure). In the statblocks themselves, 2024 has Initiative and a Passive Perception entry, similar to 4e's Initiative and Perception entries.
7 - Technically a minor action in 4e, of which the 5e bonus action is the analog.
8 - Maybe entirely.
9 - See Pact of the Blade, or the True Strike cantrip.
 

...and specialty wizards...
Are you looking at 2014 or 2024?

All 8 specialties are given a full subclass with unique abilities in original 5e. If you are saying you prefer the (mostly) unified specialization mechanic to unique features, that's fine. I just want to make sure you aren't comparing 2e to the 2024 5e, which is less like 2e than the original 2014.

If you are looking at 2024, it's also worth noting that 2014 attempted to present a more comprehensive list of subclasses for clerics also, with 7 in the PHB and 1 in the DMG that they tried to make broad enough to map all deities they presented to. (I think they failed and there were a few missing ones that needed to be there, and that at least one of the later ones they made shouldn't have been made, but that's besides the point.)
 

There's a lot about 2E that I just find bass-ackwards and obtuse*, at least in the core books. I really like the settings they did for it, but 5E feels like what 3E might have been if it had been designed by people who didn't think 'ivory tower' game design was a good idea for a TTRPG.

*Particularly:
- The insistence on using gendered language for player character features to the point that there's a super defensive aside about it in the intro. Granted, this continued on in to 3E, just with the pronouns alternating, but in 2E combined with the art being almost entirely male characters it really just comes across as though the core rulebook fears getting cooties. There's nothing wrong with using the word 'you'.

- The bizarre categorical restrictions. Dwarves can't cast Arcane magic, some races can't advance or even take certain classes. It's very arbitrary.

It's why I would like to see a good 2E retroclone.
 

Alternatively, you could just use the "ignore" function and continue to enjoy the overall awesome community that is ENWorld.
I find the "I'm taking my ball and going home" reaction in people too funny. There are people here that I have a good rapport with and others that tend to lean toward disagreement. I have learned, some people I don't interact well with here, so I just don't read their post on a regular basis. Nothing personal. just that we usually have opposed opinions. After posting in a thread with someone head-to-head and it starts getting heated, I'm usually out after three-four exchanges, with a polite "Lets agree to disagree"
 



Remove ads

Top