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

[TwoSix]

Well there are formulas for every single stat not just those three. Hit points, ac values, skills, etc, all have several forumlas.

Regardless, I'm not sure it helps argue in favour of 4e if the way to make it work hinges on ignoring its prescribed rules/methods.

Sure, but I've done that in every edition of D&D. If you think it's bad in 4e, you should try making an NPC by the rules in 3.5/Pathfinder.

And again, not trying to argue for 4e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

IDK. I really quite like 3e-style MCing & Feats. In 5e they're not the default, that doesn't ruin 5e for me. If the mini rules in 5e had been default, and the DMG had a module of great TotM rules, would that have been such a bad thing?

Every game is just what you make of it, that way, and it's always easier to toss something out than make it up yourself...

Part of that was not adressed at me, was it? I do like 3e style MC and think 5e implemented it well.

 

[brehobit]

I think 5e is the best edition so far. It has hit a nice point for being able to be fast, easy to run and fairly balanced. But it comes at a price:

• 4th edition had much more tactically interesting combats.
• 4th ed had much more interesting pure martial characters.
• 3rd edition had a lot more flexible character design.
• 5th edition probably has the worst skill rules since 2nd edition.
• 2nd edition was a bit more "free form". 1st was a lot more free form. There just weren't rules for a lot of things. That's both good and bad.

I would like to see a more tactically interesting option exist. And I wish the fighter and rogue had more interesting combat options. But on the whole, I like 5e as a GM and player. But I probably won't play a lot more pure martial characters in 5e until something changes.

IMO, 3rd is a great game to make a character in. 4th is fun/interesting for set-piece combats, 2nd and 5th are best for the actual "larger picture" gaming due to speed and ease of play. I think 2nd was almost strictly better than 1st.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Part of that was not adressed at me, was it?

Just the point that something doesn't need to be default to be acceptable.

 

[RotGrub]

Sure, but I've done that in every edition of D&D. If you think it's bad in 4e, you should try making an NPC by the rules in 3.5/Pathfinder.

And again, not trying to argue for 4e.

I totally agree, 3e was also bad for that. 2e was far more arbitrary in that regard, which made it faster IMO.

 

[BryonD]

I think if you asked this question 19 months after 3E came out, the answers would not reflect what 3E is remembered for today.
I think if you asked this question 19 months after 4E came out, the answers would not reflect what 4E is remembered for today.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Just the point that something doesn't need to be default to be acceptable.

Never denied that...

The default however does say something about an edition... and how people perceive it. And 5e does a good job setting the right tone.
4e was good in many regards, as was 3.5, but the tone that was set put off a lot of people and attracted others. And players telling me how to play as a DM is not to my taste... I learnt as a player that the DM is the final arbiter of the rules, even though I sometimes hated that. But at the end of the day, the DM will always win, so you should learn to trust him.

3.0 also had a little rule. The DM´s best friend and "rule 0". At the first page of the DMG you were told that you can adjust DCs up and down, or gove little plusses when corcumstances are good for the PCs or little penalties if they take bad actions. In the 3.5 DMG rule 0 isn´t mentioned at all and the DM`s best friend is only half as effective (lowering or raising DCs isn´t mentioned at all), and the "playing on a grid" note is the first paragraph, even before the "running the game" section...

So the tone of those editions really changed and even though 3.5 still mentions that the DM is the final arbiter of the rules, his position was weakened.

 

[MostlyDm]

Kits were not really designed for power gaming options, they were designed for role playing. In some cases a Kit would have more hindrances than benefits, but that was intentional. A fighter who has access to full plate is always going to be more powerful than a fighter who's culture has never seen it or who's ethos forbids it. Still, if a player wants to make a Savage Fighter you should have that option regardless of imbalances.

It's like arguing that some weapons are more powerful than others. Yes, some kits are as well, but that doesn't mean a particular campaign or a culture within won't find a use for them.

I really think you have to look at Kits much differently than you do a PrC or a Sub Class. They are not the same thing. They were designed with a different purpose in mind.

Are you under the impression that 3e PrCs were primarily for power gaming, rather than for Roleplaying?

I'd say the vast majority of PrCs were total crap from a power gaming perspective, but typically exemplified some desirable role playing milestone.

Some were overpowered and appealed to optimizers... Like some 2e kits.

So I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Some were overpowered and appealed to optimizers... Like some 2e kits.

So I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw.

Probably one of designers' imagined attitudes. In the late TSR years, the folks running it, notoriously Lorraine Williams, were openly contemptuous of their own fan base. WotC took over, and, according to Cook in Ivory Tower Game Design, intentionally included 'rewards for system mastery,' a page taken from M:tG design. Very different attitudes. And, yes, the implication is that elements of 3.5 were specifically there for powergamers, that the chargen/level up meta-game was legitimatized in that era. Which may not be the most flattering way of expressing the player empowerment that marked modern D&D prior to 5e.

 

[RotGrub]

Are you under the impression that 3e PrCs were primarily for power gaming, rather than for Roleplaying?

I'd say the vast majority of PrCs were total crap from a power gaming perspective, but typically exemplified some desirable role playing milestone.

Some were overpowered and appealed to optimizers... Like some 2e kits.

So I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw.

No, I'm not under that impression.

Let me try to explain the distinction. PrCs changed up your powers and/or gave you more. It was largely a mechanical alteration. In comparison, a Kit slaps you with role playing concept. If a bunch of hindrances were needed you got them and sometimes you got very little in return. In 2e a player was encouraged to select a Kit for role playing reasons, not mechanical reasons. You selected it to role play the concept not for the powers it gave you.

In addition, some kits supported particular campaign styles and/or technology levels, making them incomparable with each other. Hindrances enforced the role playing concept, which is something PrCs don't do. For example, take the Savage. You start with 0 gp and must select items from the New Savage Equipment list (made of stone and they might break). You get a -3 to atk, dmg, and prof checks when in any sort of armor for being uncomfortable. You also get a -1 if you're not in your tribal dress. Now, I'm sure some power gamer could find a way to justify using full plate armor, but if he did that he wouldn't gain much respect at a 2e table. It would be obvious that he cared very little about role playing the concept and was using it for min/maxing reasons. On the other hand, a player embracing the concept wouldn't suffer any such penalties.

Lastly, it was up to the DM to explicitly allow a particular kit in his campaign. The DM was even encouraged to change the kit to suit his campaign. For example, if Amazon's are different than the Kit presented in the Complete Fighter's (not based on Amazons of Greek myth ) then he was encouraged to make changes.