D&D 5E What does 5E do well?

[overgeeked]

It's a deceptively simple question, but there's not an easy answer. I picked this up from Matt Colville by way of @Aldarc.


For those who cannot see the tweet:

"I said 4E is great for Heroic Fantasy: you're already a hero at level 1 with several dope powers! And it's not super good for dungeon crawling or survival? But it is great for "Save the world" adventures! Someone asked "What is 5E good for?" And...I did not have...a good answer?"

And this video, around the 1:35 mark.

I'm phrasing the question a bit softer than Matt did, but I still think it's a good question.

What I'm looking for is a playstyle answer. What style of play does D&D5E do best? Or even better than other editions. This isn't an edition war thread, it's an honest question.

5E doesn't do survival well because there are several class features, background features, and spells that completely negate the challenges of survival. It doesn't really do exploration well because again, there are several class features, background features, and spells that completely negate the challenges of exploration. It doesn't handle dungeon crawling particularly well without a few hacked in rules. It doesn't do roleplaying any better than any other edition of D&D. Combat? Whatever you think of 4E, it had better balance in combat. Some say to the point of blandness, but it was better balanced. Monster design? Again 4E had far more interesting monster design. Fast combat? Any TSR edition had faster combat. Character options? Again nope. 2E, 3x, and 4E all had more character options. It's not the best for character optimization, charop people say that left, right, and center. It's not the easiest to learn. Basic would be easier to learn, 2E would be easier to learn...and arguably 4E is easier to learn.

So what does 5E do really well as a game? What playstyle or area of play is its strong suit?

(I know the urge to say some variation of "it's popular" or "it brings in new players" will be nigh overwhelming, but for the sake of conversation, do resist as none of those are actual answers to the question.)

 

[LordEntrails]

Having played every edition of D&D, though admittedly decades ago, I think a lot of your statements are just wrong. I certainly don't remember combat being faster in Basic, but I certainly haven't timed combats. Not easier to learn? 4E was certainly more effort for me than 5E. But all your comparisons to editions are... well, they don't answer your question either and only serve to start an edition debate.

As you point out, 5E is exceptional at growing the customer base. Part of that no doubt is culture, marketing and just timing. But it's also because this edition so clearly fills the sweet spot for a vast majority. Easy enough to learn, quick enough to resolve conflict, adaptable enough to various play styles, enough player options, easy enough to adapt monsters, not too rule burdened, not too many options, enough options, meaningful choices in character selection, and enough combat options to give enough variety.

So, it's just enough of everything. The right blend of spicy, sweet, and sour!

 

[ECMO3]

It's a deceptively simple question, but there's not an easy answer. I picked this up from Matt Colville by way of @Aldarc.


For those who cannot see the tweet:

"I said 4E is great for Heroic Fantasy: you're already a hero at level 1 with several dope powers! And it's not super good for dungeon crawling or survival? But it is great for "Save the world" adventures! Someone asked "What is 5E good for?" And...I did not have...a good answer?"

And this video, around the 1:35 mark.

I'm phrasing the question a bit softer than Matt did, but I still think it's a good question.

What I'm looking for is a playstyle answer. What style of play does D&D5E do best? Or even better than other editions. This isn't an edition war thread, it's an honest question.

5E doesn't do survival well because there are several class features, background features, and spells that completely negate the challenges of survival. It doesn't really do exploration well because again, there are several class features, background features, and spells that completely negate the challenges of exploration. It doesn't handle dungeon crawling particularly well without a few hacked in rules. It doesn't do roleplaying any better than any other edition of D&D. Combat? Whatever you think of 4E, it had better balance in combat. Some say to the point of blandness, but it was better balanced. Monster design? Again 4E had far more interesting monster design. Fast combat? Any TSR edition had faster combat. Character options? Again nope. 2E, 3x, and 4E all had more character options. It's not the best for character optimization, charop people say that left, right, and center. It's not the easiest to learn. Basic would be easier to learn, 2E would be easier to learn...and arguably 4E is easier to learn.

So what does 5E do really well as a game? What playstyle or area of play is its strong suit?

(I know the urge to say some variation of "it's popular" or "it brings in new players" will be nigh overwhelming, but for the sake of conversation, do resist as none of those are actual answers to the question.)

skills, classes, races and combat. 5E does all those better than other editions.

 

[jeffh]

It does most things well enough. It's kind of a "second-best at everything" edition.

One big factor is the whole "gateway drug" aspect of it, but you're somewhat right to dismiss that because that's not really because of any merit of its own. It's more good fortune in being around at the time things like Critical Role are raising the hobby's profile; whatever edition happened to be around now could likely say the same.

But, it's easy enough to pick up, gives just enough options to feel like you've got interesting choices to make (at least early on), the combat can be made tactical and interesting without much difficulty, it plays fast enough to keep things moving. Though I don't agree with every statement in the op, it's somewhat true that 5E doesn't look particularly good if you're single-mindedly optimizing for just one of the things you listed. But why would you want to do that? For a campaign that's going to include all of them, as most do, it's the edition that doesn't fall on its face at anything.

 

[John R Davis]

As I totally disagree with just about everything in your OP their is no direct answer.
What it does well: it sells well and it draws many new people in.
Job done 5th ed.

PS saying you don't want edition warz, then you compare editions?!?

 

[John R Davis]

Double post. Please delete

 

[Ath'kethin]

5e adapts to different playstyles better than any other edition (probably because it explicitly draws from all of them and for that specific purpose).

I don't think 5e does any of a previous edition's specialities better than the previous edition did, but you can make most anything from a previous edition work in 5e with relatively little effort. Often, you can actually just lift stuff from earlier editions wholesale and plop them in.

 

[Sithlord]

5e adapts to different playstyles better than any other edition (probably because it explicitly draws from all of them and for that specific purpose).

I don't think 5e does any of a previous edition's specialities better than the previous edition did, but you can make most anything from a previous edition work in 5e with relatively little effort. Often, you can actually just lift stuff from earlier editions wholesale and plop them in.

I agree. One of the long term groups I play with, definitely not at the flgs, are rules are a mixture of 5E and 2E

 

[Dausuul]

This is the Forge Fallacy: A game should zero in on a single purpose, be good at one thing, and forget everything else. In fact, an RPG needs to be good at many things.

5E isn't as good at combat as 4E. But it's better than the other editions, and it beats 4E in verisimilitude and integration of mechanics with fiction.

5E isn't as easy to learn as Basic. But it's easier than the other editions, and it beats Basic in character options and balance.

5E offers less scope for charop than 3E. I missed the part where that was a point in 3E's favor.

And so on. I don't think 5E is the best possible edition of D&D; there's still plenty of room for improvement. But, considering all the elements instead of just one, I think it is the best edition so far.

 

[Imaculata]

I've only played a little 5e, and I got the impression that it does boss battles really well. The rules for lair actions and legendary actions are something 2E and 3.x never had. As I still play 3.x all the time, I've ported those rules over from 5e.

It also seems to do action resolution really well. I personally prefer the focus on action declaration over skill declaration, which 3.x seems to encourage.

What I mean by this, is that 3.x often suggested that if you had a skill for something, you could declare to your DM that you wanted to use it, often with dice in hand ("I use my climb skill!"). I prefer 5e's hands-off-the-dice approach, where you state what action you want to take ("I try to climb the wall with my bare hands!"), and the DM then tells you if and what you need to roll for.