What 5e got wrong

[Fanaelialae]

You sir have intrigued me never played AD&D im assuming there was a table that governed the level gap somewhere but this sounds interesting.

Yeah, sorry, I was assuming anyone who read that would be familiar with AD&D.

Basically, the way that multiclassing worked in AD&D was that you picked two or three classes (though the combinations were limited by your race) and split XP between those classes evenly. The rest of the rules above are largely equivalent to the AD&D rules.

The above "level limits" are simply the result of doubling/tripling the amount of XP needed to gain a level in 5e. A two-classed character is 15th level when his single classed friend is 20th because it normally takes 355,000 xp to reach 20 level. If you split that evenly between two classes, you get 175,500 xp which is only enough for level 15.

In AD&D you tracked the xp for each class separately because each class required a different amount of xp to level (IIRC, a thief needed 1,250 xp to reach level 2, whereas a wizard needed 2,500 xp for the same). In 5e you could simplify this by simply creating xp tables that are double/triple the normal xp table (that way you save the players the trouble of having to divide xp constantly).

 

[Azurewraith]

Yeah, sorry, I was assuming anyone who read that would be familiar with AD&D.

Basically, the way that multiclassing worked in AD&D was that you picked two or three classes (though the combinations were limited by your race) and split XP between those classes evenly. The rest of the rules above are largely equivalent to the AD&D rules.

The above "level limits" are simply the result of doubling/tripling the amount of XP needed to gain a level in 5e. A two-classed character is 15th level when his single classed friend is 20th because it normally takes 355,000 xp to reach 20 level. If you split that evenly between two classes, you get 175,500 xp which is only enough for level 15.

In AD&D you tracked the xp for each class separately because each class required a different amount of xp to level (IIRC, a thief needed 1,250 xp to reach level 2, whereas a wizard needed 2,500 xp for the same). In 5e you could simplify this by simply creating xp tables that are double/triple the normal xp table (that way you save the players the trouble of having to divide xp constantly).

Don't worry I often throw around legal terms just expecting my friends to know.

Simplified XP table sounds good may give it a spin

 

[MostlyDm]

So you've hung out with 3.5/PF fans and their general consensus is that 5e is better? I don't think so.

I'm still working my way through this thread but I wanted to reply to this one question.

The answer, for my limited group, is a resounding yes.

I have no idea how my group stacks up compared to other groups. But most of us started in 2e (I'm the one exception, I played a bit of 1e AD&D and redbox classic).

When 3e came out we were excited. No more THAC0? No more racial restrictions? Sign us up. Wizards could wear armor?? (Not really but that's what we thought at first.) It seemed so cool.

3.5 was a welcome fix to various broken pieces. We played 3e extensively.

We also played 4e when it was released. We were a little more skeptical, but we went through a short campaign By-The-Book, and then my players agreed to some minor changes to fit better my desired flavor... a big thing that helped me conceptually was thinking of HP as how close you were to clinical shock and Healing Surges as actual health. I just hacked in a simple Injury system, with an injury just taking longer to heal and leaving you down 1 or more surges until recovered. No more 6 hour bounceback from all harm.

Ran a 4e campaign like that with a lot of success. This was in about PHB3 era.

Got burned out. Went back to 3.5 and tried pathfinder. Fun, but it was taking 3.5 in a direction I wasn't fully a fan of.

Heard about the Next play test but didn't pay much attention. Except for Advantage. That was cool.

Tried going all the way back to redbox Basic. That had some charm but didn't really work for us after a single session. So we hacked in a ton of 3.5 rules... Particularly in the E6 style. Also Advantage. Played a Basic/3.5/e6 variant abomination for the next 3 years. Ultimately it's closer to 3.5 than anything though.

Still playing it, but about a year or two ago I looked more closely at 5e and discovered that in addition to Advantage they'd also brought in E6 sensibility with Bounded Accuracy, which I had somehow not noticed earlier. Instantly sold.

Aside from the one amalgamation game that I'm gonna run until it's truly run its course (and a purely homebrew custom system I use for settings D&D doesn't fit) I am pretty much 5e only now.

Until 5e I would have absolutely put myself into the camp of people who consider 3.5 the best system to date, for all its flaws and for all that I homebrew it extensively. Because it's modular enough not to collapse under that homebrewing... Something I feel 5e shares with it, in addition to having a much better overall design philosophy.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Just to add my 2¢ to what @Fanaelialae said...

In 1e AD&D, yeah, what he said...however I would also like to add in that the DM was free to give different XP awards to the PC's classes; so he could say "Add 650 to Fighter, and 220 to Cleric"...but most of the time it was a lump sum, even split.

Also, in 1e the "balance" of the system was taken as a "campaign-level balance"; characters were expected to be played for multiple months if not years in the camapaign. This is where Level Limits come in. A lot of folk poo-poo level limits (I personally like them...but did have some house rules...as all 1e DM's do). Anyway, yeah, a level 5 Fighter vs a 5/4 Fighter/Magic-User (each with 22,000xp) may seem 'unbalanced'...as the second PC has 4 "free' levels in MU. But, with PHB level caps, that Elven F/MU would hit his Level 7 Fighter max soon. Then he's gaining only half-xp, effectively, to add to his MU...up to level 11, when he's capped. The human fighter, however, is still going strong, gaining 'full' xp, going to 12, 13, 14, etc. That said, most campaigns didn't see characters hit much past the low to mid 'teens' (re: 12th to 15th), but from a campaign perspective, it rationalized why every 200 year old elven Fighter, Magic-User, or F/MU wasn't 30th or 40th level...they were caped. In fact, that was the ONE thing that Humans had over all the other races...their "human special ability"...it wasn't better saves, infravision, innate spellcasting abilities, etc...it was the ability to advance to any level in any class. That was the "human special ability", and why humans dominate the assumed 1e AD&D campaign worlds. But I digress...

In 5e, I have an idea floating around in the back of my brain about allowing MC, but making characters 'wait' until they have enough XP to cover advancement in all their classes at once. So, a character could start as a F/MU...they would be 1/1. They start adventuring and start gaining XP. They can not advance until they have enough XP to be a FOURTH level character...wherein they become 2/2. They continue to advance...and must accumulate enough XP to be a SIXTH level character...wherein they become 3/3. Then XP for EIGHTH level...4/4. Then 5/5, 6/6, 7/7, 8/8, 9/9, and finally 10/10...where they are now a 20th level character and are done advancing. For triple class, kind of the same, but the MAX LEVEL they would ever be able to attain would be 6/6/6, or 18th. They would never gain xp past that. Maybe I'd figure out a way of allowing the last two levels to be gained, but probably not...just another consideration for choosing three classes for your character. Maybe let the last 2 levels be PrC only? Hmmm....not sure...

Anyway, as it stands, I don't like the 5e MC rules and much prefer the 1e method (probably because that's what I've grown up with), and I have been unable to shake that ingrained preference no matter how many times I try (old dog, new tricks I guess... ).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[GameOgre]

We all (6 of us) played Pathfinder for years but have moved on from it. We now play 5E.

I can honestly say we like 5E better than Pathfinder(despite the HUGE pile of Pathfinder books screaming at me from my bookshelves).

With that said, 5E is not the end for us. We will keep playing it till we find something better but like Pathfinder there is much about it we just do not like. Just not as much as Pathfinder has.

If Pathfinder 2E were to come out tomorrow and be a better system for our table than 5E we would change yet again.

We are not loyal to a system but to our game.

 

[Celtavian]

The highest praise I've heard from 3.5/PF fans for 5e is "nothing really bad about it." I haven't seen or heard a lot of defections - the EN headline we saw a while back about 5e widening it's lead on PF was about a 1% widening of that gap, pretty minor, really. Most 5e players at our FLGS have been playing since Encounters or are are returning fans having last played 2e (a heartening number of them, really - I see faces every week that I only used to see 1/yr at conventions).

How can you say this? My entire group 'defected' from Pathfinder. That's what we were playing prior to 5E. We all liked Pathfinder. We played it for years buying up all the books. We wanted something new and 5E was more like the D&D we played in the past, so we gave it a try. We all enjoyed it and are playing it now. That's four players in my group. I'm still a vocal Paizo supporter and prefer their modules to 5E modules. 5E offered something Pathfinder does not offer in terms of simplicity to play and run. 5E doesn't have the breadth Pathfinder has, but it hasn't been out near as long.

I don't know that I look at things as better. I enjoyed every edition of D&D save one, which I won't rehash as I have no interest in edition warring. I feel as though change is inevitable. You get bored doing the same thing the same way all the time. We all decided a new game system would energize play in our group, so we moved on from Pathfinder. I'm still holding out hope Paizo decides to do something like 5E and simplify their game. I miss playing their APs. I don't enjoy WotC adventures as much. They don't seem to have as much meat to them and aren't as interesting to read. I never quite feel like I've gotten my money's worth with WotC adventures. I always felt like I got more than my money's worth with Paizo APs.

Unfortunately, I grew weary of the Pathfinder/3E mechanics. Too easy to min-max. The Paizo crew kept putting broken things in the game that interacted in a fashion to create rule situations that made DMing nightmarishly difficult. I still believe their creative team is better than the WotC creative team when it comes to adventure design and it's not even close. But 5E is a well-designed game that I prefer playing at the moment. Though I am finding that min-maxing in 5E is also very possible, but doesn't have as large a negative impact on the game as it is does in Pathfinder/3E due to all the inherent limitations in the 5E system.

I guess I'll add to your experience with Paizo/PF/3E fans that moved to 5E. I thought I had been pretty vocal about my group switching from PF to 5E. I figured there were quite a few of us about.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Ok, now my non-reply post.

For me, what 5e got "wrong" was err'ing on the side of caution over deadly. IMHO, when they came upon something that would cause a characters death (or likely to do so) in 1e/2e/becmi, or even 3.x, they went with "less deadly, no/less chance" over "as is". In those situations I think they should have had an immediate "OPTIONAL" section/blurb for those DM's like me who prefer a more deadly game. Just look at the Phantasmal Killer spell thread. I'd much rather have it be "save or die". Power Word Kill...the 100hp restriction is laughably low for 5e! I had a barbarian PC in my group with about 90hp...and he was only 5th level! Almost guaranteed to crack 100 by 5th..and by the time he hit levels where bad guys would be capable of throwing around Power Word Kill...well, yeah, at that point it's not "Power Word Kill" anymore, it's more like "Power Word Harsh-Language".

My (and my group) like a more "deadly" game...we want to feel like death could be around any corner or throug the next door. The way 5e's default is set up, however, it's more like a game of "spooky explorations in kiddie-land" half the time. And the times when it isn't...it ends up being really jarring from a play perspective. The first few times that juxtaposition is exciting...but after a while it gets to the whole "Oh...I guess this is one of those 'deadly' parts...I'll start rolling up a new guy now...that's just...awesome...*sigh*...". Not near as f'ed up as 3.x/PF, where a party of 15th level PC's sees a group of 100 creatures and thinks "We can take 'em!", then sees a single creature standing int he middle of a massive cavern and thinks "Everyone! Shut the F up! SHHHH!!!!! Back away...slowly​...now...RUN AWAY!".

As I say time and time again...consistency is key for running an engaging campaign world.

So, yeah. I think 5e missed the boat on having little tid-bits (notes, options, pearls of wisdom, suggestions, etc) scattered throughout the system for those who want a more 'deadly' game.

Oh, and what I said way earlier...Feats and MC. Just don't like the way they are done...still... Love the concept...hate the execution.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Psikerlord#]

Hiya!

Ok, now my non-reply post.

For me, what 5e got "wrong" was err'ing on the side of caution over deadly. IMHO, when they came upon something that would cause a characters death (or likely to do so) in 1e/2e/becmi, or even 3.x, they went with "less deadly, no/less chance" over "as is". In those situations I think they should have had an immediate "OPTIONAL" section/blurb for those DM's like me who prefer a more deadly game. Just look at the Phantasmal Killer spell thread. I'd much rather have it be "save or die". Power Word Kill...the 100hp restriction is laughably low for 5e! I had a barbarian PC in my group with about 90hp...and he was only 5th level! Almost guaranteed to crack 100 by 5th..and by the time he hit levels where bad guys would be capable of throwing around Power Word Kill...well, yeah, at that point it's not "Power Word Kill" anymore, it's more like "Power Word Harsh-Language".

My (and my group) like a more "deadly" game...we want to feel like death could be around any corner or throug the next door. The way 5e's default is set up, however, it's more like a game of "spooky explorations in kiddie-land" half the time. And the times when it isn't...it ends up being really jarring from a play perspective. The first few times that juxtaposition is exciting...but after a while it gets to the whole "Oh...I guess this is one of those 'deadly' parts...I'll start rolling up a new guy now...that's just...awesome...*sigh*...". Not near as f'ed up as 3.x/PF, where a party of 15th level PC's sees a group of 100 creatures and thinks "We can take 'em!", then sees a single creature standing int he middle of a massive cavern and thinks "Everyone! Shut the F up! SHHHH!!!!! Back away...slowly​...now...RUN AWAY!".

As I say time and time again...consistency is key for running an engaging campaign world.

So, yeah. I think 5e missed the boat on having little tid-bits (notes, options, pearls of wisdom, suggestions, etc) scattered throughout the system for those who want a more 'deadly' game.

Oh, and what I said way earlier...Feats and MC. Just don't like the way they are done...still... Love the concept...hate the execution.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Absolutely agree one of the 5e downfalls is it's far far too hard to die. I also agree on MCing. Feats though I like, albeit they dropped the ball by not having a sidebar saying "these are just example feats, be sure to make your own!"

 

[Fanaelialae]

Power Word Kill...the 100hp restriction is laughably low for 5e! I had a barbarian PC in my group with about 90hp...and he was only 5th level! Almost guaranteed to crack 100 by 5th..and by the time he hit levels where bad guys would be capable of throwing around Power Word Kill...well, yeah, at that point it's not "Power Word Kill" anymore, it's more like "Power Word Harsh-Language".

In fairness, your barbarian friend must have rolled improbably well, and not just on HP. Rolling maximum every time on 1d12 nets only 60 HP at 5th. If he started with an 18 Con, he gets another 20 HP, for a total of 80, but that would mean that he either prioritized Con over Str, or he rolled so amazingly well for ability scores that he didn't need to. Finally, in order to reach 90 HP, he also has to take the Toughness feat.

While it is technically possible, it certainly won't the norm. In any system with random generation you're going to have improbably lucky coincidences, like the guy who rolls three 18s in 3d6 stat generation.

To put this in perspective, I recently rolled up a 15th level NPC cleric with only 86 HP. Assuming average HP, she'll be 18th level before she can ignore PW:K while at max HP.

While I agree that they curbed instant death effects a bit, I also think you're overstating the issue. My players just hit 19th level last session and I can't count the number of times that I could have nailed them with PW:K (had there been a mage to cast it).

 

[Staffan]

Power Word Kill...the 100hp restriction is laughably low for 5e! I had a barbarian PC in my group with about 90hp...and he was only 5th level! Almost guaranteed to crack 100 by 5th..and by the time he hit levels where bad guys would be capable of throwing around Power Word Kill...well, yeah, at that point it's not "Power Word Kill" anymore, it's more like "Power Word Harsh-Language".

Power word: kill is the spell you cast to end a fight, not open it. You need to soften your foes up a bit first.