What 5e got wrong

[Tony Vargas]

Thinking about things though, I think that they could have simplified the system even more. People complain about the lack of a warlord or other classes...I feel like there really only needs to be three classes. Martial, magical, and skilled. Every one of the existing classes can be boiled down to one of these three.

When you think about it, everything you could fit under 'martial' combined with everything you could fit under 'skilled' still doesn't add up to anywhere near what could fit under 'magical,' while a few things, like psionics might not technically be magical.

So, you really only need two: Skilled (including martial skill), and Supernatural (magical, psioinic, &c).

It would have been a radical departure from prior editions, so I know why they didn't do it, but it would have been interesting to see.

I can't bring a specific example to mind, ATM, but I'm sure I seen or heard of some games or others working like that. Maybe in the 90s?

The issue is, in many cases, the elements they chose were the worst ones. Multiclassing, for example. 1E, 2E and 4E all had essentially the same take, yet they chose to use the terrible 3E version and make it worse.

Heh. I'd have to say that 3e had the best MCing system (but, sadly, the worst-balanced set of classes to use it with), and 5e improved upon that MCing system. The problem was very much the classes. 3e, 'modular' I call it, Multi-classing treats the first /n/ level of each class as if it were equivalent in value to the next /n/ levels of every other class, at every level after 1st. Aside from the Fighter, no class in 3.x was anywhere near that meticulously balanced.

There are so many good ideas brought about for 5E that were just botched in execution. It turned out a rather kludgy, fan service edition for grognards.

I'm not seeing that many good ideas in 5e. At least, not new ones. And the few I could point to don't seem botched. Which ideas do you think were botched, and how?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Who decided that was true? Certainly not by my reckoning. IMO, they took all the right parts of all the editions and mushed them together into the best edition ever.

Looks like our votes cancel each other out. Where does that leave things now?

Me to break the tie. 5e wins.

Seriously though, 5e has been heralded as one of the best editions of the game yet, and not just taken from the typical fan bluster you see in the first few months. It's been out over 3 years now (including playtest), and it's still being widely heralded as a great game.

I'm also not sure what Hershal is talking about re: multiclassing. 5e requires min stat requirements in order to multiclass, which is all about AD&D

 

[Tony Vargas]

Seriously though, 5e has been heralded as one of the best editions of the game yet, and not just taken from the typical fan bluster you see in the first few months.

The highest praise I hear of 5e is usually along the lines of "best edition since 2e" or words to that effect invoking one of the other classic (pre-3.0) editions.

It set out to evoke the feel of classic D&D and succeeded, to great effect, since more people formed their impression of D&D back when it was a fad, and during the remaining TSR years than since, and reviving that has been successful.

But the sense of 'best' in that context, is primarily about familiarity and the nostalgia/enthusiasm of a fad having it's come-back.

It's been out over 3 years now (including playtest), and it's still being widely heralded as a great game.

Are you sure you were paying attention to the playtest? Because I seem to remember a lot of complaints and controversy - and I did actually run playtest games, the system was pretty bad as a whole, through most of it, as it seemed they were 'testing' individual elements without fixing up things (like monsters) that they knew were off. It was only after we saw 5e that we appreciated how good some bits of the playtest had been (MDDs compared to CS dice, is one that stands our for me; the creative playtest Sorcerer vs the blah version they settled on is another).

I'm also not sure what Hershal is talking about re: multiclassing. 5e requires min stat requirements in order to multiclass, which is all about AD&D

Actually, AD&D stat requirements were to enter the class, at all, not just to MC to it. INT of 8, couldn't be a Wizard. CHA only 16, pick something other than Paladin. The happened to apply to multi-classing, but they weren't the major defining feature of it. The major defining feature of AD&D multi-classing was Race. Your race dictated your available MC options. From there, it worked nothing like 5e MCing, at all.

The MC system is one of the few things 5e took from modern editions and actually improved upon, a little. It also made it optional.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The highest praise I hear of 5e is usually along the lines of "best edition since 2e" or words to that effect invoking one of the other classic (pre-3.0) editions.

It set out to evoke the feel of classic D&D and succeeded, to great effect, since more people formed their impression of D&D back when it was a fad, and during the remaining TSR years than since, and reviving that has been successful.

But the sense of 'best' in that context, is primarily about familiarity and the nostalgia/enthusiasm of a fad having it's come-back.

Disagree. The impression I get from the many different communities, from all other editions (albeit not as much 4e fans), is that 5e is the best overall.

Are you sure you were paying attention to the playtest? Because I seem to remember a lot of complaints and controversy - and I did actually run playtest games, the system was pretty bad as a whole, through most of it, as it seemed they were 'testing' individual elements without fixing up things (like monsters) that they knew were off. It was only after we saw 5e that we appreciated how good some bits of the playtest had been (MDDs compared to CS dice, is one that stands our for me; the creative playtest Sorcerer vs the blah version they settled on is another).

Yeah I was paying attention, and was heavily involved in the playtest from day 1. Nearly all of the complaints were because "Man! I wanted to play this version of the sorcerer and I can't!" or "the monsters have too few hp." But a whole lot of people, and the majority of the comments, were actually excited about 5e and loved playing it. Look at the bigger picture (like the number of people who downloaded and played the playtest) rather than base an opinion solely on a few internet comments.

Actually, AD&D stat requirements were to enter the class, at all, not just to MC to it. INT of 8, couldn't be a Wizard. CHA only 16, pick something other than Paladin. The happened to apply to multi-classing, but they weren't the major defining feature of it. The major defining feature of AD&D multi-classing was Race. Your race dictated your available MC options. From there, it worked nothing like 5e MCing, at all.

The MC system is one of the few things 5e took from modern editions and actually improved upon, a little. It also made it optional.

The very fact that you needed to have a minimum stat heralds back to AD&D. Not 3e. Which was my point.

 

[Herschel]

Heh. I'd have to say that 3e had the best MCing system (but, sadly, the worst-balanced set of classes to use it with), and 5e improved upon that MCing system. The problem was very much the classes. 3e, 'modular' I call it, Multi-classing treats the first /n/ level of each class as if it were equivalent in value to the next /n/ levels of every other class, at every level after 1st. Aside from the Fighter, no class in 3.x was anywhere near that meticulously balanced.

Interesting take. Here's where I'm coming from:
I joined an in-progress game game, old school style with coming in at first level and stat rolling. I wanted an unarmored or lightly-armored divine or arcane melee swordsman who wasn't stuck being a Dex Monkey by an overly-limited system. Well, that doesn't work very well in 5E to start with.

I rolled terrible and was stuck with the garbage standard array, having to build a CHA/DEX Paladin/Warlock in order to get close to the archtype with mediocre stats. Already being two levels behind other characters, having lower stats than other characters would be noticed but workable within bounded accuracy, except losing ground due to multiclassing also because the system is so straightjacketed in to narrow tropes made the character just too ineffective to sensibly adventure with the rest of the party.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The impression I get from the many different communities, from all other editions, is that 5e is the best overall.

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

The very fact that you needed to have a minimum stat heralds back to AD&D. Not 3e. Which was my point.

Sure, but it's trivial compared to /not/ requiring race, and MCing to a new class when you level vs advancing in both (or all three) from first, and, for that matter, in being able to combine any classes instead of specific ones. 5e uses a somewhat improved version of 3.x multi-classing. That's probably one of the strongest examples of taking 'the best' from each prior edition.

Interesting take. Here's where I'm coming from:
I joined an in-progress game game, old school style with coming in at first level and stat rolling. I wanted an unarmored or lightly-armored divine or arcane melee swordsman who wasn't stuck being a Dex Monkey by an overly-limited system. Well, that doesn't work very well in 5E to start with.

Has it ever worked well? 5e is a little more accommodating to light-armored concepts - if they have good DEX, almost regardless of class, because 'finesse' weapons are all but 'free' in chargen terms. You don't have to take feats and MC to be basically OK in light armor using a light or ranged weapon, you /just/ need that good DEX.

Low DEX and light armor prettymuch means defenseless, if you can't dodge and you're unarmored, how do you avoid attacks?

I rolled terrible and was stuck with the garbage standard array, having to build a CHA/DEX Paladin/Warlock in order to get close to the archtype with mediocre stats. Already being two levels behind other characters, having lower stats than other characters would be noticed but workable within bounded accuracy, except losing ground due to multiclassing also because the system is so straightjacketed in to narrow tropes made the character just too ineffective to sensibly adventure with the rest of the party.

Paladin/Warlock may not be the most synergistic class combo, but I'm not seeing where the MC system, itself, was the problem. If everyone else is two levels ahead of you (and, Bounded Accuracy aside, that's still having more hps and the next higher level slots available, which is no small thing), and has better stats, you're going to be noticing it.

 

[abirdcall]

Interesting take. Here's where I'm coming from:
I joined an in-progress game game, old school style with coming in at first level and stat rolling. I wanted an unarmored or lightly-armored divine or arcane melee swordsman who wasn't stuck being a Dex Monkey by an overly-limited system. Well, that doesn't work very well in 5E to start with.

I rolled terrible and was stuck with the garbage standard array, having to build a CHA/DEX Paladin/Warlock in order to get close to the archtype with mediocre stats. Already being two levels behind other characters, having lower stats than other characters would be noticed but workable within bounded accuracy, except losing ground due to multiclassing also because the system is so straightjacketed in to narrow tropes made the character just too ineffective to sensibly adventure with the rest of the party.

Isn't the point of randomizing character generation to generate a randomized character? If you come in with the character premade and then are upset that the dice rolls don't allow your character, that seems like a feature rather than a bug.

I mean, you want a high dex character but then roll an 8 for dex, guess that doesn't happen.

 

[TwoSix]

Interesting take. Here's where I'm coming from:
I joined an in-progress game game, old school style with coming in at first level and stat rolling. I wanted an unarmored or lightly-armored divine or arcane melee swordsman who wasn't stuck being a Dex Monkey by an overly-limited system. Well, that doesn't work very well in 5E to start with.

Sadly, lighted-armored character without a focus on Dex is pretty much near impossible in 5e, since there's virtually no stat replacement.

I rolled terrible and was stuck with the garbage standard array, having to build a CHA/DEX Paladin/Warlock in order to get close to the archtype with mediocre stats. Already being two levels behind other characters, having lower stats than other characters would be noticed but workable within bounded accuracy, except losing ground due to multiclassing also because the system is so straightjacketed in to narrow tropes made the character just too ineffective to sensibly adventure with the rest of the party.

Yea, probably the best you can do there is go Cleric 1 for medium armor and shields, then Warlock(Tome) to grab Charisma-based shillelagh and one of the melee attack cantrips. Would make you a Cha-focused melee character with decent armor, and a good smattering of buff spells. Sadly, I just can't think of a good way to pull off lightly-armored or not-armored warrior without a strong Dex focus.

 

[Herschel]

Randomizing character stats is NOT intended to say "screw you and your character concept". Why should anyone waste their time playing the game then?

You may make compromises, like going the CHA/DEX Paladin/Warlock route was not ideal, but fit enough of the criteria to go with. Unlike 1E/2E, good stats are more important, especially when all else is not equal.

 

[Staffan]

Yea, probably the best you can do there is go Cleric 1 for medium armor and shields, then Warlock(Tome) to grab Charisma-based shillelagh and one of the melee attack cantrips. Would make you a Cha-focused melee character with decent armor, and a good smattering of buff spells. Sadly, I just can't think of a good way to pull off lightly-armored or not-armored warrior without a strong Dex focus.

You could go Barbarian and focus on Con, which adds to AC for them. You wouldn't get the best AC, but you'd get a middling one. You could also go druid and use barkskin.

And IMO, that's the opposite of a problem. Saying "I want to be a lightly-armored warrior without focusing on Dexterity" is about the same as saying "I want to be a wizard without focusing on Intelligence." You can do it, but you won't be very good at it.