Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7023171" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>I think there are few people who HATE 5e, there really is little about it to hate, though some things do bug me quite a bit. Still, 2e had PLENTY of things that bugged me as well, it was still an improvement over 1e in most respects. 5e likewise improves on 2e, but it kinda is just going sideways otherwise. It is kind of an ultimate expression of the trends and desires of people who were playing D&D in the late-1e/2e time frame when the purely Gygaxian approach to the game kinda lost its wheels. In that sense its a quite good reprise of many elements of 2e, finally recast in a much more sensible and friendly form. It just doesn't do action-adventure anything like as well as 4e did, IMHO.</p><p></p><p>I think there are a lot of people who, oddly enough, consider 3.5 to still be within the realm of classic D&D, but that don't see a point to 5e's clear departure from that realm (particularly in terms of spell-casting I assume, since 3.x fighters are already pretty much totally different from 2e ones). Anyway, I can't speak for those people, I merely observe that many people I knew that were playing 3.5 and didn't buy 100% into 4e, even if they played it and really enjoyed it, simply went back to 3.5 and haven't bothered with 5e. I can't even get into a 5e game, unless I go play with people I don't know. Its popular enough, in general, but seems to be far from universally lauded as some would have you believe.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I just didn't find 5e combat that INTERESTING. It was usually pretty much obvious what the next move was, and any real cleverness would happen at other levels of the game. </p><p></p><p>For example, when we played through Phandelver we of course came upon the Dragon, and said dragon then (after the module ended) tried to thwart my character's scheme to build a new barony seated at the old Castle Cragmaw. Our characters of course were entirely unable to confront this, being maybe 3rd level or so at the time. There simply was no tactical option or merely tactical/operational trick that was going to make dealing with a high CR creature feasible. Honestly this would have been pretty much true in 4e as well, but 5e is singularly silent in terms of presenting any framework for achieving any OTHER sort of success besides combat. </p><p></p><p>Instead we went on to another adventure, which involved gaining entry to a tower which was warded by an utterly impenetrable magical barrier. Except persistence eventually allowed us to find a procedure for entering and exiting. Being clever we managed to repurpose this dungeon into a giant unescapable dragon trap. This was entertaining, and we got rid of the heinous worm this way, which was cool and fine. It just illustrated that 5e didn't really provide any tactical options, whereas 2e might well have done so (difficult and perilous though they might have been). Its just a remarkably non-tactical game! </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now, see, I had a lot of fun reading the 4e MM1. I thought it really had a good bit of lore. It tended to allow a lot of things to be mostly implicit though, a power often speaks directly to the nature of a monster without a lot of excess verbiage. Part of the problem with older editions was that often there was NOTHING mechanically about a monster which supported its 'fluff' at all! 4e tended to be the opposite, the nature of the beast was explicit! I also liked the way MM1 provided additional lore check results, something that later MMs inexplicably excluded. </p><p></p><p>4e's DMG certainly seemed quite readable as well, being a fairly good treatise on DMing (at least assuming you accepted some of its assertions about the nature of D&D adventuring in 4e). The PHB was definitely intended to be a reference manual, though it does NOT lack in flavor text (actually I recall doing an analysis of this point and discovering it compares favorably with the 3.5, 2e, and 1e PHBs in this respect, all of them being very roughly a 50/50 mix of flavor and other elements). </p><p></p><p>I would just add that I personally find 5e's DMG and PHB to be incredibly annoying documents which detract constantly from my enjoyment of the game, as their organization is actively antithetical to providing references when you need them, leading to a lot of "I throw up my hands, the rule for A is simply not evident, just do X" followed next week by someone finally finding the obscure place where the rule for A was finally uncovered lurking at the end of some paragraph of fluff in a different section of the book. Gah! I routinely read and discard entire systems for this sort of crime. At my age I simply don't have time and patience to thoroughly memorize rulebooks or keep rereading them just to find every little element. In fact this is actually my #1 beef with 5e, particularly as a DM.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7023171, member: 82106"] I think there are few people who HATE 5e, there really is little about it to hate, though some things do bug me quite a bit. Still, 2e had PLENTY of things that bugged me as well, it was still an improvement over 1e in most respects. 5e likewise improves on 2e, but it kinda is just going sideways otherwise. It is kind of an ultimate expression of the trends and desires of people who were playing D&D in the late-1e/2e time frame when the purely Gygaxian approach to the game kinda lost its wheels. In that sense its a quite good reprise of many elements of 2e, finally recast in a much more sensible and friendly form. It just doesn't do action-adventure anything like as well as 4e did, IMHO. I think there are a lot of people who, oddly enough, consider 3.5 to still be within the realm of classic D&D, but that don't see a point to 5e's clear departure from that realm (particularly in terms of spell-casting I assume, since 3.x fighters are already pretty much totally different from 2e ones). Anyway, I can't speak for those people, I merely observe that many people I knew that were playing 3.5 and didn't buy 100% into 4e, even if they played it and really enjoyed it, simply went back to 3.5 and haven't bothered with 5e. I can't even get into a 5e game, unless I go play with people I don't know. Its popular enough, in general, but seems to be far from universally lauded as some would have you believe. I just didn't find 5e combat that INTERESTING. It was usually pretty much obvious what the next move was, and any real cleverness would happen at other levels of the game. For example, when we played through Phandelver we of course came upon the Dragon, and said dragon then (after the module ended) tried to thwart my character's scheme to build a new barony seated at the old Castle Cragmaw. Our characters of course were entirely unable to confront this, being maybe 3rd level or so at the time. There simply was no tactical option or merely tactical/operational trick that was going to make dealing with a high CR creature feasible. Honestly this would have been pretty much true in 4e as well, but 5e is singularly silent in terms of presenting any framework for achieving any OTHER sort of success besides combat. Instead we went on to another adventure, which involved gaining entry to a tower which was warded by an utterly impenetrable magical barrier. Except persistence eventually allowed us to find a procedure for entering and exiting. Being clever we managed to repurpose this dungeon into a giant unescapable dragon trap. This was entertaining, and we got rid of the heinous worm this way, which was cool and fine. It just illustrated that 5e didn't really provide any tactical options, whereas 2e might well have done so (difficult and perilous though they might have been). Its just a remarkably non-tactical game! Now, see, I had a lot of fun reading the 4e MM1. I thought it really had a good bit of lore. It tended to allow a lot of things to be mostly implicit though, a power often speaks directly to the nature of a monster without a lot of excess verbiage. Part of the problem with older editions was that often there was NOTHING mechanically about a monster which supported its 'fluff' at all! 4e tended to be the opposite, the nature of the beast was explicit! I also liked the way MM1 provided additional lore check results, something that later MMs inexplicably excluded. 4e's DMG certainly seemed quite readable as well, being a fairly good treatise on DMing (at least assuming you accepted some of its assertions about the nature of D&D adventuring in 4e). The PHB was definitely intended to be a reference manual, though it does NOT lack in flavor text (actually I recall doing an analysis of this point and discovering it compares favorably with the 3.5, 2e, and 1e PHBs in this respect, all of them being very roughly a 50/50 mix of flavor and other elements). I would just add that I personally find 5e's DMG and PHB to be incredibly annoying documents which detract constantly from my enjoyment of the game, as their organization is actively antithetical to providing references when you need them, leading to a lot of "I throw up my hands, the rule for A is simply not evident, just do X" followed next week by someone finally finding the obscure place where the rule for A was finally uncovered lurking at the end of some paragraph of fluff in a different section of the book. Gah! I routinely read and discard entire systems for this sort of crime. At my age I simply don't have time and patience to thoroughly memorize rulebooks or keep rereading them just to find every little element. In fact this is actually my #1 beef with 5e, particularly as a DM. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
Top