D&D 5E What Makes 5E "5E"?

[GMMichael]

What do you think. What elements of 5E make it 5E.

5e is what happens when the marketers run the ship:

Spoiler: Exciting marketing conversation

A: Huge backlash when we introduced 4e, but Pathfinder is going strong.
B: Let's bring back the 3e rules.
A: But, we need to keep our 4e fans!
B: Okay, let's throw in tons of healing, subclasses, dragonborn, tieflings . . .
A: Hmm, the 3e players complained there was too much math and complexity.
B: Okay, we'll call it "streamlined."
A: Are we really going to make it simpler?
B: Of course not. We can't charge as much for a smaller book.
A: Sales are falling, and we have a 50th anniversary coming up.
B: Let's put out a new edition!
A: Except, "new edition" didn't test well with market research.
B: Then let's call it the same edition!
A: But our licensed rules allow free use of the old rules.
B: Let's just cancel the license, then.
A: Erm, that didn't test well either.
B: Fine, let's just make sure the new edition, I mean, revision, makes the old edition look bad.
A: We can do that, but it'll look like a new edition, then.
B: Just keep calling it "compatible." No one will notice.

 

[Reynard]

5e is what happens when the marketers run the ship:

Spoiler: Exciting marketing conversation

A: Huge backlash when we introduced 4e, but Pathfinder is going strong.
B: Let's bring back the 3e rules.
A: But, we need to keep our 4e fans!
B: Okay, let's throw in tons of healing, subclasses, dragonborn, tieflings . . .
A: Hmm, the 3e players complained there was too much math and complexity.
B: Okay, we'll call it "streamlined."
A: Are we really going to make it simpler?
B: Of course not. We can't charge as much for a smaller book.
A: Sales are falling, and we have a 50th anniversary coming up.
B: Let's put out a new edition!
A: Except, "new edition" didn't test well with market research.
B: Then let's call it the same edition!
A: But our licensed rules allow free use of the old rules.
B: Let's just cancel the license, then.
A: Erm, that didn't test well either.
B: Fine, let's just make sure the new edition, I mean, revision, makes the old edition look bad.
A: We can do that, but it'll look like a new edition, then.
B: Just keep calling it "compatible." No one will notice.

Thanks for posting.

 

[GrimCo]

What makes 5e "5e"? Well, books have 5e printed on them, of course.

Bad jokes aside.

Rullings over rules is big one.
Classes with subclasses
Bounded acuraccy
No stacking situational bonuses - adv/dis
No stacking buff spells
No stacking in general - so no more AC in 40s and 50s
Simplified multiatack - you just get extra attack as part of attack action
No magic market and loose item creation rules (mostly refer to point 1)
Skills that auto level - ability mod + proficiency mod. If one goes up, skill goes up. That's it. No more spending points and bookkeeping
Dull weapon choices ( most weapon choices are purely aesthetic with minimal difference to them, fe battleaxe vs longsword - both are martial versatile 1d8/1d10 slashing weapons, alternative - warhammer, same but bludgeoning damage).

 

[Deset Gled]

• The return of and emphasis on DM empowerment and house rules. In both 3 and even more in 4E, WotC seemed to want a one true way of playing. Lock down the rules so we all have the same experience may make sense in some ways but I don't think it ever really worked well.

Oh, I can add something useful about this! I was recently at a con (PAGE 2) where Bill Slavicsek, Rich Baker, and Ed Stark hosted a panel about the days of 3e development. This was something they specifically addressed.

There was an intentional "lock down" on rules as you say. But it wasn't based on a desire to take power away from the DM. Rather, it was a backlash to the environment created by 2e in the late 90s. They were going through a lot of previous material, and found that a number of rules had been painfully de-centralized, so to speak. There were many schisms where books (I think mostly different setting, but I could be wrong) tackled the same thing, or similar things. But the rules were often completely different in different books, and different authors wrote different rules for the same things. IIRC, the example Ed Stark gave was that they found 6 different sets of rules for drowning.

One of the main goals that everyone remembers for 3e was to have more unified mechanics. It's how we got the d20 system after all, and was overall one of the big successes of 3e. And as part of that, they had a goal to find rules that had been done multiple different ways, and write unified mechanics for them. They saw this as a necessary correction to steer D&D away from a problem that had built up over the previous decade.

Now, the three all admitted that they ended up over-steering in this correction, and going a little bit too far. Sometimes this was just adding more rules than were truly needed, and sometimes it was a result of Peter Adkinson pushing things too far towards simulationism. But they all agreed it was an important direction for D&D to take at the time, even if the end result wasn't exactly what was intended.

 

[Oofta]

Oh, I can add something useful about this! I was recently at a con (PAGE 2) where Bill Slavicsek, Rich Baker, and Ed Stark hosted a panel about the days of 3e development. This was something they specifically addressed.

There was an intentional "lock down" on rules as you say. But it wasn't based on a desire to take power away from the DM. Rather, it was a backlash to the environment created by 2e in the late 90s. They were going through a lot of previous material, and found that a number of rules had been painfully de-centralized, so to speak. There were many schisms where books (I think mostly different setting, but I could be wrong) tackled the same thing, or similar things. But the rules were often completely different in different books, and different authors wrote different rules for the same things. IIRC, the example Ed Stark gave was that they found 6 different sets of rules for drowning.

One of the main goals that everyone remembers for 3e was to have more unified mechanics. It's how we got the d20 system after all, and was overall one of the big successes of 3e. And as part of that, they had a goal to find rules that had been done multiple different ways, and write unified mechanics for them. They saw this as a necessary correction to steer D&D away from a problem that had built up over the previous decade.

Now, the three all admitted that they ended up over-steering in this correction, and going a little bit too far. Sometimes this was just adding more rules than were truly needed, and sometimes it was a result of Peter Adkinson pushing things too far towards simulationism. But they all agreed it was an important direction for D&D to take at the time, even if the end result wasn't exactly what was intended.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for the info!

 

[billd91]

One of the main goals that everyone remembers for 3e was to have more unified mechanics. It's how we got the d20 system after all, and was overall one of the big successes of 3e. And as part of that, they had a goal to find rules that had been done multiple different ways, and write unified mechanics for them. They saw this as a necessary correction to steer D&D away from a problem that had built up over the previous decade.

That’s not really a unique issue or motivation for 3e considering it was a cited reason for 2e as well. So, I’m not really sure how interesting their statements are to that effect.

One of the motives for 3e’s more structured rules, as discussed at the time by Skip Williams, was to improve a player’s understanding of what they could accomplish and how probable success would be, giving them, in effect, the ability to make better informed decisions. Hence, rules got a boost relative to rulings.

 

[Deset Gled]

That’s not really a unique issue or motivation for 3e considering it was a cited reason for 2e as well. So, I’m not really sure how interesting their statements are to that effect.

Interesting enough to motivate you to post about it.

(smiley in case Chenoweth isn't whimsy enough)

 

[Chaltab]

Interesting enough to motivate you to post about it.

It shouldn't be surprising to hear that each edition's design is strongly influenced by the shortcomings, real or perceived, of the previous editions. Though given I still hear complaints about 4E having 'hostile marketing' it seems like being open about that can potentially backfire.

 

[billd91]

It shouldn't be surprising to hear that each edition's design is strongly influenced by the shortcomings, real or perceived, of the previous editions. Though given I still hear complaints about 4E having 'hostile marketing' it seems like being open about that can potentially backfire.

There’s a pretty noticeable gap between statements like “we’ve learned a few things and now our product is better” or “some new additions to the rules cropped up in a variety of sources and a new edition allows us to reconcile and consolidate”… and “that was bad”. Basic marketing education would say “don’t badmouth your prior product, show how the new one is improved”.

Ultimately, I think someone was hoping to run a wry and edgy marketing campaign. But there’s a lot less tolerance for edgy than people realize.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I think this is a deeper conversation than what makes 5E different than 4E or 3E or B/X or whatever edition of D&D you're into.

It's also about the numerous games that have come out in the last 10 years that are in response to or adjacent to or borrowing from 5E.

Reynard mentioned Shadowdark. I'm thinking of Shadow of the Demon Lord. He believes those are not really 5E, despite some similar mechanics. I think they are.

I'd be interested to hear what others think about games that aren't 5E but share some mechanics or influences.