Opinions on 5e?

>>44793381
Solid. As an AD&D, 3.x & Pathfinder veteran I like the rules a lot.

I'm looking forward to seeing splatbooks for variety, some more campaign settings & published adventures etc.

>>44793381
It's good.

>>44793381
Yes, I'm sure this will be a very good thread. Not shitstormy at all.

>>44793381

I like it. It fixes a lot of the stupid that plagued the 3x series without becoming a totally different game.

Deliberately retro, solid system but it's still d&d so it's got a fair bit of cruft there for nostalgia

It did nothing to make me think DnD was worth playing but neither did any of the other DnD's so its a solid meh/10.

Apparently captcha thinks corn on the cob is bananas as well.

It's a very safe edition.
You can tell they really didn't want another controversial edition like 4e was, and they took the feedback from the play tests seriously to get something that enough of the masses would say "feels" like D&D.

Nothing particularly wrong with it, but it doesn't do very much for me either.
Would play it over 3.pf if I wanted a dungeon crawl/combat focused fantasy game and the rest of the group refused to play 4e, and any other type of game (even less actiony fantasy) I would play something that is not D&D

File: RuneSoldier4.jpg (90KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x480px

>>44793648

I didn't like earlier editions of D&D, including Pathfinder, but I like 5e a lot. I used it to introduce some newbies to tabletop, and I've been running a nice big save-the-world fantasy campaign for a year now. We're all having a blast.

I'll be trying to get them into other systems and settings after the campaign ends, but as a first game it's fantastic. What do you want your players to do in their first tabletop adventure? Roll some d20s, yell at a king, curse at that fucking mindflayer who's behind every plot, slay a dragon, save the world.

It's good. I'll take it over 3.x any day. I really like the roll for background shit they added too.

It's thoroughly ok.

It's not hot shit on the sidewalk like 3.5 is. It's relatively balanced(casters are still the supreme end-all-be-all as far as utility goes, but martials are a good contender when combat rolls around), they don't feel the need to have rules for literally everything to the point of advanced autism, and it's pretty fun.

That being said, it's incredibly bland, some parts of lazy and poorly-thought out rules(which the ConeHorse shenanigans will attest to), and I generally see zero reason to play it over 4e.

So I guess what I'm saying is 4e>5e>>>>>>>>>>getting your teeth pulled without anesthetic>>>>>>>3.PF.

File: 1388988116049.jpg (225KB, 500x388px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 500x388px

>>44793907
>they took the feedback from the play tests seriously

Well meme'd my friend.

>>44793381
>that saying about "opinions and assholes"

>>44793381
The best way to describe it is that it's the 3rd Edition we would have gotten if in 2001 Wizards had already learned the lessons of 3rd and 4th Editions.

About my only complaint with it is how quickly you can gain levels, but that's easily fixed.

Less shit than 4e, but still a step back from 3.5 that lacks most of that game's depth. Might be a decent choice for beginners, but experienced gamers will likely want something more substantial.

>>44794793
>which the ConeHorse shenanigans will attest to

In fairness, I can't think of a single RPG that doesn't have some kind of exploit like that. Perfection is a journey, not a destination.

It has nice illustrations and presentation overall, 4e would have looked great in books like these.

>>44793381
I really enjoy it. I went from 1e to 2e etc etc. I ended up not liking 3.pf at all and 4e just wasn't for me, if ok in its own narrow way. 5e plays like I remember my best times playing 2e.

>>44793381
Horrible.
>hurrrr I can haz advantage?
>durrrr much bounded accuracy

Its almost as shit as 4th. Just slightly less gay.

>>44793381
I like it, the classes are quite a bit more balanced and there's a LOT less math involved compared to 3.X. Only real downside is that there aren't many splatbooks yet

>>44793381
i find it "meh", i prefer 3.5
but i think that 5e is a solid starting point for anyone interested in tabletop RPGs due to it's simplicity

>>44794793
>casters are still the supreme end-all-be-all as far as utility goes
The thing that bugs me is "utility" is such a broad thing.

It is the best edition of D&D.

>>44793381
It's better than 3.5e/PF and 4e, so much so that there is no longer any reason to every play those ever again.

Note that this doesn't mean 5e is perfect, but rather everything 3.5e/PF do better than 5e is done ever more better by a non-DnD system.

>>44796151
Interesting. I thought those were the best points of 5e's design, even if the execution is disappointing. But now that you've typed them as if you were speaking in a retarded voice, I see that they were bad ideas all along.

>>44799118
It doesn't do better than 4e at what 4e does well.

It is better than 3e at the 3e experience though.

>>44793381
Diluted 3rd
If you liked 3rd, you'll like 5th.

Its bad old D&D

>>44793381
Limits suck, priority is a shit method of character creation when combined with non-linear advancement, not muh Decks, the plot's taken 5 steps backwards for no good reason, and it was put out to appease grognards and people who masturbate over the dead genre of Cyberpunk, rather than the new hotness that is post-Cyberpunk.

>>44799403
It is nothing like od&d.
Its more like d&d for dummies.

>>44799293
The execution being shit, is the point.

Retards aside, bounded accuracy is nice in theory, but shit in d&d.
Advantage vs disadvantaged, is just dumb, and only there to help support BA, which, is shit.

>>44799858
>Advantage vs disadvantaged, is just dumb
It's a billion times better than the shitpiles of charts that previous editions used.

>>44796165
Why do you fucking idiots keep saying that?

Wait till as many supplements come out for 5th. Then relook at the class balance.

Because, class imbalance is 1/2dm being idiots, and 1/2players being idiots. Give 5th more time, those same idiots will imbalance it as well.

Meanwhile, my group will carry on, with no balance issues. Because we aren't fucktards.

>>44799906
What charts?
There's like 2bro.

>>44799981
In D&D 3.5: Balance (2 charts)
Bluff, Climb (2 charts), Concentration, Craft, Disable Device, Disguise (2 charts), Escape Artist, Forgery, Handle Animal (2 charts), Heal, Jump (3 charts), Listen (2 charts), Move Silently, Open Lock, Perform, Ride, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spellcraft, Spot, Survival, Swim, Tumble (2 charts), Use Magic Device, Use Rope

Those are all the charts that exists just in the skill section alone. That's not counting everything outside the core book, the charts in the combat section, or any other modifier charts.

That's 35, bruh. Sure, some are small. But that's too fucking many.

>>44800154
If you need to use those charts, you're shit. Nevertheless I don't deny the fact that 5e might be more fun for you, it is indeed a solid release.

>>44800747
>if you use what's in the game it's shit
>but now that they're gone it's also shit
Make up your mind

>>44800747
>If you need to use those charts, you're shit.
Or you're new.

Why does everyone have to be so grognardy as to assume that anything they don't use themselves is for shitty people?

>>44799934
They have like...5 people working on 5e.

Supplements are slow-going.

>>44800898
It ain't selling well.

>>44800828
Because its accurate.

File: post-Roosevelt Republicans.jpg (26KB, 400x339px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x339px

>>44801527
Hey, I think I've seen you on Facebook!

>>44801594
Facebook is for faggots.
>huurrrrr I am at (x) eating!!!

Second most retarded thing ever.

>>44796263
Solving an issue without hitting it with a stick.

>>44796151
You do know that advantage/disadvantage is an optional house rule in 3.5 and something practiced sometimes in 2e by gm's that had any form of logic?

>>44803347
>implying

>>44793381
I like it well enough. Simple, easier to get into and get going.

Options feel a bit limited, but we've been spoiled in that regard. Crafting is terrible.

This might be a bit weird, but to me it feels like the tabletop version of Skyrim.

Skyrim is not that great of a game. It's very simplistic, and it can get samey in vanilla mode.

Thus, I supplement my Skyrim with shit loads of mods. It extends the content, improves immersion, and makes it not suck.

I feel similarly about 5e. I was playing GURPS before, so 5e feels barebones to me. So I use community content to flesh it out. There's fanmade systems for just about everything, and I find that including some of it judiciously in the game vastly improves the experience.

File: 34252349570344352.jpg (52KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x400px

pic related and I like it

good mix of high tech and low tech

i do miss a bit how the past few editions have been character building sims that you can role playing game with, and this is kind of the reverse, but thats ok i ultimately do prefer it this way though i miss my delicious delicious feats and stuff

pathfinder 2e when?

>>44794891

It was more as if a bunch of grognard were forced at gun point to take one thing from 3e (unified d20) and one thing from 4e (rituals).

If they learned from 3e&4e take 10/20 would at least be optional (passive checks are only for hidden checks the DM wants to roll). They would have had optional power based martial classes. They would have had a warlord class at launch.

They certainly didn't learn that insulting the player base of your previous edition is a bad idea.

>>44793381
There's no reason to switch from 2e to 5e.

>>44793381
I hate it the least of any edition of D&D.

I started with AD&D 2e and it felt like the game didn't want me to have fun or explore options. You either played it the way it wanted to be played, or not at all.

3e was fun but I was a teenager and had no taste. 3.5 was using shoe polish on a turd. The entire thing was a mess of trap options and sub-par, half-baked design disguised as "system mastery" in a clumsy attempt at saying "No, we're not shitty designers, we did that on purpose"

I skipped 4e entirely so can't say anything about it.

I'm actually having fun with D&D 5e and it feels like a solidly built game that lends itself well to customization and houserules and homebrew material without the game's balance feeling like a delicate house of cards that could collapse if you look at it wrong. It's also very simple compared to previous editions, to the point where I could probably teach three or four complete newbies how to make characters and play with just a single session.

>>44793381
I like it

File: 1426391769405.jpg (44KB, 550x449px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 550x449px

>>44793381
It is my least favorite edition of D&D.

Started with 2e, when it was basically the only game in town if your town didn't have a well-stocked bookstore. Friends and I were obsessed with fantasy novels wnd were immediately dissapointed by how BAD it was at making things feel like fantasy novels. We spent YEARS house-ruling into an unrecognizable pretzel, but it eventually did what we wanted. It's an mechanical turd, but has nostalgia value for me.

3e came out, and at first we were like "hey, this is slightly better OOTB than 2e was at doing what we wanted." However, after a while, the fundamental cracks in the system started to show. What's more, the advent of the internet meant we could more easily and cheaply introduce ourselves to the wonderful world of games that aren't D&D. Most of us just skipped over the whole OGL thing, because those largely seemed like just more D&D. At-least building a character in 3e was fun.

4e came out, and we gave it a try, and were pleasantly surprised. It did what we spent years house ruling 2e to do, but without house-rules... and it did it better than our pretzel-2e did. We loved it, and beyond the nostalgia value of 2e, it's largely our edition.

As someone who came out of 2e, 5e kept claiming to be pandering to me, but it just looked like more 3e. Gave it a fair shake, and it does nothing for me. It doesn't really emulate 2e, it feels more like its emulating what younger players imagine 2e played like. It's not fun to build a character in like 3e. Combat is straight-up boring, but at-least it's over before you can blink. I can't find anything to get passionately angry about, but there's nothing to like either, and being bland and forgettable is worse than being grievously flawed but fun in my book. Basically, the only thing it has going for it is fast combats, but those combats aren't even fun, just over with quickly.

>>44793381
This thread pretty much confirms all my preconceptions about D&D players.

>Lol, it's gay.
>It doesn't feel like D&D
>It feels like the wrong edition of D&D
>Lol the old editions were better, no your argument is stupid, nobody used all those rules, houserules bruh.

Like, not a single person has really talked about whether or not it's a good game on it's own, it's all just whether or not it's the right type of D&D for you. Which makes sense since D&D is it's own thing and real humans play other games.

>>44810333
This post pretty much confirms all my preconceptions about people who feel the need to tout the fact that they don't play D&D like it makes them anything other than an elitist faggot.

It's serviceable. I can't really say better than that.

It's a very safe edition of D&D. It's hard to find a reason to hate it that isn't 'I preferred X better' but by the same token it doesn't do much to set itself apart.

I'm not much of a fan (I prefered 4e and 5e has likely killed any chance of a 4.5 or other edition based on 4e) but it's not going to do any real harm either.

>>44799437

Pretty much.

Oh that and 'Characters are now vaguely competent and you'll need to play for months and months to even get close to being an expert in a field.

4e Characters were MGS villains. Horribly impressive in their chosen area and likely to have a few nasty tricks. 5e Characters are more like MGS mooks. Decent enough at their job but not capable of matching up with real players.

>>44810387
>(I prefered 4e and 5e has likely killed any chance of a 4.5 or other edition based on 4e)
Have you checked out 13th Age?

I personally love it, and I was a fan of 4E (a bit sad I lost my "gotta catch'em all" Wizards, though).

>>44810413

I did but it and Strike! just don't work for me imo. Each of them lack something that made 4e...well, 4e.

>>44810429

Addendum: That and I really don't like the Escalation Die.

>>44810362
>Having some standards and not just sucking Wizard cock because everyone else is doing it means you're an elitist faggot.

People like you are the worst thing about the hobby.

>>44810456
>Wizards
>implying I play trash editions of D&D