D&D 5E What will 5E D&D be remembered for?

[Henry]

Probably, advantage will be the defining trait, its introduction into D&D. I know the mechanic itself is much easier older, but it is a bit of an "every tool is a hammer" idea in 5e - i anticipate that will change later on, but still be an integral part.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Probably, advantage will be the defining trait, its introduction into D&D. I know the mechanic itself is much easier older, but it is a bit of an "every tool is a hammer" idea in 5e - i anticipate that will change later on, but still be an integral part.

I had made note of this in my early feedback, and predicted the over-use of Advantage and Disadvantage well before release. In (mostly) eliminating the so-called "fiddly" bonuses, they turned what should have been a Big Deal--since it's one of the biggest bonuses you can get--into their weapon of first resort. Making the biggest impact item also the first-used item, I feel, will lead to a feeling of "shallowness" in the long run. I mean, people already complain that a thousand applications of Disadvantage can be completely counteracted by but a single application of Advantage. (It's one of the very rare places where fans of 5e actually admit a flaw of any kind, IME...)

 

[RotGrub]

I feel like that was 2E and 3E. 4E was really kind to DMs. Cut down my prep time dramatically.

Regardless, in 5e when the domination spell ends you know who charmed you.

I found that 4e increased by prep time since it conflicted with my play style. There are a number of reasons for this, but it was mostly due to how heavy handed it was and how incompatible it was with older material.

 

[RotGrub]

I'd assume he's counting 2e.

I definitely consider 2e to have kicked off the player entitlement/empowerment trend. Towards the end of its life cycle, with all the "player option"'books and stuff, it was getting overloaded with kits and doodads for savvy players to utilize.

Is it the name "Player's Option" that causes this confusion? Seriously, that book was not for the savvy player. Those books were a collection of optional rules for the game. The DM had to approve them. In fact, many rules were not compatible with each other.

To complain that 2e was overloaded with kit's is quite surprising. In 2e, Kit's are not classes, they are more like backgrounds and role playing packages. No attempt was made to balance them either, which is a good thing because some concepts didn't require too many alterations. I think it's a good thing that 2e has a huge number of kits. In fact, I'd rather have kits than 3e PrCs or the class bloat issues 4e introduces.

Players couldn't run amok because I wouldn't let them, and had the confidence to enforce it and make sure everyone had fun.

You don't have to let them run amok in 2e either.

 

[RotGrub]

I had made note of this in my early feedback, and predicted the over-use of Advantage and Disadvantage well before release. In (mostly) eliminating the so-called "fiddly" bonuses, they turned what should have been a Big Deal--since it's one of the biggest bonuses you can get--into their weapon of first resort. Making the biggest impact item also the first-used item, I feel, will lead to a feeling of "shallowness" in the long run. I mean, people already complain that a thousand applications of Disadvantage can be completely counteracted by but a single application of Advantage. (It's one of the very rare places where fans of 5e actually admit a flaw of any kind, IME...)

Many people worship Dis/Adv, but the fact is the system still uses modifiers. Personally, I think it's a bit overrated and it would be rather sad if a single mechanic is all 5e will be remembered for.

 

[RotGrub]

Player empowerment? How about our friendly Dark Elf Ranger from the 1e Unearthed Arcana.

Ah, the days where being a High Strength Dart thrower was the Ultimate cheese.

Dart Fighters are banned at my 2e table.

 

[CapnZapp]

Making D&D magical again [emoji4]

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like the return to Theater of the mind and the empoerment which comes with that.

While I'm as delighted as anyone with 5e's repudiation of RAW obsession and general DM-Empowerment, and will agree TotM is part of that, because it creates an ambiguity in positioning that the DM can leverage to keep control of a scene, I have to quibble about 'return.' D&D started out as a miniatures wargame and has never vocally defaulted to 'TotM' before (and, even though 5e does claim to default to TotM, the actual mechanics offer poor support for it). If there hadn't been so many games before it that ran without minis, and if it hadn't been a common practice among some groups for decades (I'd often run 2e or Storyteller or even Champions! that way, when I was in college, for want of adequate table space), and if the mechanics actually backed it up, we could even call it an innovation.

As it stands, it's just an empty counter to an empty criticism of 3.5.

In one of the last two editions I had to argue with a player about the fact that a skeleton was standing in the middle of a 10 ft wide hallway... and the argument was that I as a DM must play by the rules and the rules don't allow standing between two squares...

That is a funny one. 2e C&T introduced the grid to make things easier, but any simplification can lead to little murphy's rules like that.

So it is the return to theater of the mind for me. Back to the path that 3.5 left. So it is the spirirual successor of 3.0 for me.

It's refreshing to see someone else who appreciated 3.0, though I'm a little surprised with the reasoning.

Making the biggest impact item also the first-used item, I feel, will lead to a feeling of "shallowness" in the long run. I mean, people already complain that a thousand applications of Disadvantage can be completely counteracted by but a single application of Advantage. (It's one of the very rare places where fans of 5e actually admit a flaw of any kind, IME...)

Sure. OTOH, it is going for simpler play, and it delivers. Simpler play means shallower play. The DM can always add wrinkles to tactics & strategy if he wants, by ruling one way or another when players try something clever.

Regardless, in 5e when the domination spell ends you know who charmed you.

Really bad analogy.

I found that 4e increased by prep time since it conflicted with my play style.

I had a similar experience, in that, in most systems, prep was too much of a pain to be worth it, so my prep time was 0, I'd just wing it rather than spending hours stating out some monster or NPC or trying to plan for every crazy thing a Tier 1 caster might pull out of his sleeve. In 4e, I could 'prep' a 4-5 encounter 'day' in minutes, if I was just picking and re-skinning monsters, maybe an hour if I were building new ones. That's a lot more than 0. Shorter/easier prep means I'm more likely to do some prep rather than none at all, which averages out to 'longer' prep.

Amusing, that.

Making D&D magical again [emoji4]

That's undeniably true. Magic items are game-breaking, again, and squarely under the DM's control. Casters make up the majority of PC options (30 or so of 38 or so sub-classes, only 5 PH sub-classes have no reference at all to spells/magic in their abilities). It really constricts the non-magical alternatives though. In keeping with 'classic feel,' but failing to retain the gains made by other modern editions of the game.

 

[MostlyDm]

Is it the name "Player's Option" that causes this confusion? Seriously, that book was not for the savvy player. Those books were a collection of optional rules for the game. The DM had to approve them. In fact, many rules were not compatible with each other.

To complain that 2e was overloaded with kit's is quite surprising. In 2e, Kit's are not classes, they are more like backgrounds and role playing packages. No attempt was made to balance them either, which is a good thing because some concepts didn't require too many alterations.

And many of them are strictly in every way better than the base classes they are ostensibly kits of. Even base classes that are already superb, like the "2nd best at every single thing in the game, except the stuff I'm best at" 2e cleric.

Kits weren't even being balanced by the ostensible traditional mechanic of "strictly better classes take more XP to level."

That's terrible design, in my opinion. But you're right you didn't have to use them, any more than you "had" to use various supplements for 3.X, 4e, etc.

I think it's a good thing that 2e has a huge number of kits. In fact, I'd rather have kits than 3e PrCs or the class bloat issues 4e introduces.

Why?

They all seem fundamentally similar to me, same as new archetypes in 5e.

I don't hate the existence of options on principle. But I will be careful about including them due to the times they lead to power creep (read: always, inevitably, forever and ever, in every system.)

You don't have to let them run amok in 2e either.

Oh, you misunderstood me. It was harder for them to run amok in 2e than 3e. 3.X is definitely the worst at this... that was my point: I don't mind overpowered player options so much, even with the edition that was the absolute worst at it, because I am generally comfortable modifying the system.

4e being the system I was the least comfortable modding, but I still did it plenty. I wasn't willing to play by their "6 hours of rest and no matter what your injury was you're back at 100%" for example, so I hacked in a very simple injury system that did not substantially disrupt the design assumption that does, in fact, assume everyone is always at 100% functionality at the start of a day. (Injuries = delayed recovery of X number of surges worked pretty well.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

While I'm as delighted as anyone with 5e's repudiation of RAW obsession and general DM-Empowerment, and will agree TotM is part of that, because it creates an ambiguity in positioning that the DM can leverage to keep control of a scene, I have to quibble about 'return.' D&D started out as a miniatures wargame and has never vocally defaulted to 'TotM' before (and, even though 5e does claim to default to TotM, the actual mechanics offer poor support for it). If there hadn't been so many games before it that ran without minis, and if it hadn't been a common practice among some groups for decades (I'd often run 2e or Storyteller or even Champions! that way, when I was in college, for want of adequate table space), and if the mechanics actually backed it up, we could even call it an innovation.

As it stands, it's just an empty counter to an empty criticism of 3.5.

That is a funny one. 2e C&T introduced the grid to make things easier, but any simplification can lead to little murphy's rules like that.

It's refreshing to see someone else who appreciated 3.0, though I'm a little surprised with the reasoning.

When I say Theater of the Mind I don´t need mechanics that support it. I just need no rules in the PHB that make heavy use of the grid. In 3.0 cover for example was completely in the hand of the DM. Also the adjucation of how much concealment there is.
Actually in 5e it is still not as detailed as it was in 3.0 but at least you don´t draw any lines through squares to determine cover, except when you chose to use the DMG optional rule. For me it was always better if you tell about that guy who kicks the table around and ducks behind it to gain cover instead of the guy who positions behind the table and then draw lines to show how he has cover now.
That is actually enough to keep a combat going, when you just not have to stop the narrative to quibble about some little details.
And a 5ft step or shifting also made the narrative worse, since many combats worked as "I run to the archer that he can´t shoot." -> Archer makes a 5ft step back and shoots without penalty.
I only stopped when I always used my first attack to sunder the bow, because it was so damn easy. But it took system expoits to stop other exploits and it is not how you want to tell your story.