What is missing in 5E that you had in other editions?

LuisCarlos17f

Adventurer
Monster/racial classes. Racial paragon classes.

Vestige pact magic and martial adepts (Tome Battle: Book of Nine Swords).

All "true" dragons (dragons with age categories). Age categories for lord vampires and mummies.

Favored soul and psionic ardent to create characters with a hate-love relation with the rest of divine spellcasters.

Primal power for druids, rangers, shamans and company.

Urban druid.

Totemist from magic of incarnum.
 

thundershot

Explorer
Over the top, unbalanced spells.... Yes, they were broken, but they were more FUN.

I'd love to see an unbalanced 5E fused with 2E craziness... and 3E's ability to make anything a PC race.
 

MiraMels

Explorer
It's definitely missing the hours i'd spend on leveling up my character and planning out her lifetime build in between play sessions.
 
I

Immortal Sun

Guest
3e charge. It’s probably the common rule my players “forget” is not in 5e
Yeah I just looked this up the other night while playing AL. I was rather surprised it wasn't in the game, especially when there are monsters (I'm looking at you Skeletal Minotaur) that have "charge" as a special ability. I mean, there are reasons you don't need charge anymore, you can now move and attack all you want. Sure, you can't double your movement unless you're a Rogue or Monk with Dash as a bonus action. The lack of Charge, but the ability to move freely and make all your attacks is a bit of a tossup for fighter-types.

--------- Anyway------------
I miss 3.5 templates. They were terribly balanced and they're not difficult to create, but I really liked being able to grab a template and slap it on a PC or NPC to make them more interesting. There are some limited examples in 5E (were-creatures), but they just feel lacking.

Also: 5E monster design. I feel like 5E monsters are this weird middle ground between 4E and 3.X that just...doesn't satisfy either. They either seem bland and generic and needing of feats, classes and "stuff" (dragons in particular) or they seem like they're trying to build a monster that mimics a class, but without the class features (most of the humanoid enemies). Why not just make humanoid enemies have classes? And "special" creatures have "special" abilities? I don't like whatever middle ground 5E is walking here.

Also also: Delay. This should be just a standard rule in RPGs everywhere. If you don't want to take your turn yet, or aren't ready to take your turn, or whatever other reason, you should explicitly have that option. Forcing people to act on their "turn" doesn't really strike me as something the DM really needs to be burdened with enforcing.

Also also also: An Index that MAKES BLOODY SENSE! I hate the 5E index! It's horrifying to try to look anything up. It really doesn't help that related rules are often scattered around the book.
 
Last edited:

Fenris-77

Explorer
I don't actually miss the insane weight of books and subsystems that came with 3rd ed, not in retrospect anyway, but I do kind of miss the unbridled sense of possibility that came with them. That's as much because there was no internet as anything else though - now everything is gamed out and posted about ad nauseum within days or weeks of release, whether it's a 5e supplement or the newest 40K codex. That said, given the choice I'll take netlisting every time at this point. I'm no longer a young man with nothing but spare time to pour over books looking for the best builds and combos, nor the time to play in three campaigns at once and learn that way.

Those were the days though - hashing out what we thought of that new Dark Sun campaign setting while playing Alpha Edition MtG in between games of the brand new 4th Ed Warhammer Fantasy.
 

cbwjm

I can add a custom title.
I also miss the AD&D multiclassing/dual classing rules. I'm playing through Icewind Dale EE (Currently doing trials of the lure master. So many beholders!) and have a human fighter/cleric that gain mastery with maces before moving to cleric and an fighter/mage/thief and I really miss these aspects of AD&D. While multiclass characters do have slower advancement, it isn't really that bad and you still remain within a couple levels until you hit around levels 10-12, although my fighter/mage/thief does have some serious issues with hit points. Doesn't help that his constitution is rubbish.

Something I don't miss is elves requiring a resurrection spell to bring back to life. That is a serious pain and probably accounts for why there aren't that many elves around because they die early and have no high level cleric to reserrect them.
 

Draegn

Explorer
Another thing I miss is having more than a + for having very high attribute scores. 1e have a high enough constitution and you gain regeneration, a high intelligence and you have immunity to illusions.
 

oreofox

Explorer
I miss the original 3rd edition damage reduction. Not so much the number before the slash, but what came after. Some monsters needing a +3 weapon to be hurt, instead of just "magic". Druids with animal companions. Odd ability scores not being useless, and the extra effects high ability scores granted (as mentioned earlier). I kinda miss skill points.

I have honestly thought of mashing all the various D&D editions together (including pathfinder), but that is more than I am honestly willing to undertake.
 

Azzy

Cyclone Ranger
I miss...

*) Gaining more skills/nonweapon proficiencies as you go up in level.
*) Some of the old spells
*) Banded armor. :D
*) The races from OA.
*) Some of the old monsters
*) Some of the old settings being supported
*) AD&D-style multiclassing
*) Healing spell dealing damage to undead
*) B&W line art
*) Psionics
*) Being young.
*) Combat options like charging, disarming, sundering, etc.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Spells that were organized by class and level in the PHB

All of the dungeon and castle and world creation tables and guidelines from the 1e DMG
 

collin

Explorer
Basically, more abilities/feats/skills that would allow each character to be more unique and less like another. The archetypes/subclasses that 5e has helps, but it is still rather limiting, too vanilla compared what you could create in 3.x. A bard is a bard is a bard; a ranger is a ranger is a ranger. They are going to all end up being pretty similar regardless of what is chosen for an archetype/subclass because there are fewer options. IMO, in 3.x, by choosing different feats and putting points in different skills, you had more breadth along with the prestige classes to make each character different, and multi-classing was not as frowned upon as the 5e rules makes it.
 
Last edited:

RxDrAcula

Visitor
I loved kits in 2e. The number of different variations of the basic classes was seemingly endless in that edition. Sure to a DM it could be kind of annoying if a player requested a kit in a book the DM didn't have, but as long as the DM got to read a brief description of it him/herself who cared?

For example, just a few months ago I wondered if Forgotten Realms had a kit for each individual cleric to a specific deity in 2e. I found the book for it and, sure enough, almost every single cleric to a specific deity had a distinct kit with its own unique abilities and disadvantages. I love that because inspiration could hit you to create a new character. With that new character comes not only a fresh, brand-new background and personality you hadn't considered before, but a respectable number of character mechanics differences as well.

I acknowledge that 5e has some flexibility to allow for something close, but the fact that 2e had so many different options by design (and over the course of several books) made it awesome, even if it was a bit ambitious.
 

Advertisement

Top