So is 5e good?

I really hate it. Other people love it. Whatever.
Look at the rules (pretty sure most of them are free?). Maybe run a session or two. It'll be much more informative than me griping or someone else swooning.
Unless you're trying to start some sort of edition war thread. In which case, shame on you, user.

Except there are loads of other RPGs hpthat are objectively better for introducing new players too. Such as Dungeon World.

I like it, but I seem to have fallen into the trap of I'm the only person in my regular group who will run it and my other group's dms aren't reliable enough so I'm stuck DMing for them as well.

Fighter can fight.

What else do you want it to do? Summon demons? Shapeshift into a dragon?

I want to believe he does.

Why?

What's wrong with it? I'm genuniely curious to hear your critiques.

See

It's "fun" take that as you will

I think he might've meant he was hoping to have more ways to play Fighter. So "it can't do much", as in it's more limited than before

It doesn't have the options of 3.5 because those options fucked up so Wizards thought options and splats wee evil rather than admitting they tucked up.

It's a standard cycle for these retarded kikes. they try something, fuck it up, then decide that thing is bad and make the next version of he game completely opposite based on the "lessons" they learned, rather than improving on the thing they fucked up. As a result zero progress has been made. They did not learn any lessons from the good ideas in 3e or 4e, both of which had many flaws but also many good ideas.

TLDR wotc is retarded.

Sup Virt. Still haven't killed yourself yet I see.

When I look through most RPGs, I get ideas. Lots of them. 5e just didn't do that for me.

Moreover, I felt like it was unbelievably difficult to make a character mechanically differentiated from the pack. I liked the fact that it was really hard to fuck up a character - you're pretty much guaranteed to be reasonably effective unless you do something monumentally stupid. The way they handled it made character creation feel very limited, though, at least in my opinion.

I wish it'd have a greater content cycle. I would really enjoy more classes, not just archetypes for existing classes.

I don't know I'm sorta glad they did archetypes as opposed to the thousands of classes that no one would play.
Because all those different classes felt like a variation of the same four basic archtypes.

I'll agree with this.

Seriously, how many versions of thief/ninja/assassin/shadowdancer/rogue to we really need.

Just give us a template and let the player customise it from there.

Depends on the setting.

This.
though personally I believe he does.

Except it wouldn't have been hard to allow more options without compromising game balance. Just don't go back to the same retarded feat chain bull shit and things will be fine. Except feats are shit now despite ironically being better than ever because you give up your attribute bonus and some feats actually increase attributes. The whole thing is a god damn retarded mess from a company whose god complex is so severe that it thinks, if we fuckdd something up, then that entire thing must be bad, and thus we made a great discovery in game design.

Wizards of the Coast has not made any new ideas in game design since...ever. They are twenty years behind and are acting like being ten years behind is a great accomplishment.

Which one?

So ranger is just a rogue? Are you retarded?

I agree with your general point, though. That said I would love to see a scout and duskblade as their own classes.

>duskblade
Duskblade was a mistake.

why was duskblade a mistake? Overpowered?

No, you idiot, a ranger is just a ranged fighter.
But in all seriousness, in 2nd edition, the classes where broken into four basic groups:warrior, wizard, priest and, theives.
It kind has been like that for awhile. And what I was getting at is do you need a ninja when the could just a renamed rouge?
Though the worse offender of this shit is pathfinder which has both classes AND archtypes.

My only gripes thus far go hand in hand: lack of feats, and (eventual) caster supremacy. I find the simplest way to mitigate caster supremacy is to simply offer additional feats to martial classes, at regular intervals. Does it bridge the gap? Not entirely, but it helps, and makes the martials feel more useful and versatile. More options are needed, though.

> ranger is just a ranged fighter

Dude....what the fuck...

I agree about pathfinder though. There are far too many classes, particularly caster classes that I found boring and useless.

> tfw first edition where combat expertise like ability might actually be good

> tfw it won't happen

Would combat expertise break 5e?

>Most people are saying the Fighter is bad because casters do better
Does this mean Eldritch Knight is the best kind of fighter?

It's pretty acceptable, but whether 5e is "good" or not depends on what you're looking for.

Do you want a game centered around balanced combat, bringing the experience of a MOBA to the tabletop? That's not 5e, it's 4e.

Do you want something super-duper rules heavy, mechanically simulating every aspect of a fantasy universe? You might be let down, some older editions of D&D did more than that.

Do you want a rules-light system that provides a minimal framework of conflict resolution for freeform roleplaying; or do you want a power fantasy where you start the game a legendary badass? You do? Have you tried not playing D&D?

What 5e is...
>Moderate to heavy rules
Most things can be worked out mechanically, though part of that is that a number of mechanical consequences, notably advantage/disadvantage, have a very broad application.

>In favor of mixed roleplaying
During the playtest there was a lot of talk about the three pillars of D&D being combat, exploration, and interaction. 5e kind of expects you'll be doing all three, especially when it comes to who's handy how often.

>Moderatley Balanced
On one hand, there's disparity between classes and archetypes in terms of how much power they can bring to bear. They're not all created equal. However, unlike 3e, you have to be trying to make a character so incompetent that you'll feel locked out by power level disparity. If everybody sits down with the PHB and draws up people in a rough sense, no one's going to be a perennial bench warmer without something untoward happening.

All in all, it's pretty okay. I like it well enough, but YMMV.

>Does this mean Eldritch Knight is the best kind of fighter?
People will deny it but: generally, yes, EK is the most versatile and potentially strongest fighter.

I heard that the warmaster fighter with great weapon fighting does the highest dps. You just spam precision strike with the +10 damage attack, apparently.

nice & fair review

It's fun for the first couple of levels and then it gets really boring.
Caster supremacy is still a thing and is unfixable with the way DnD handles magic. 5th level is when the gap between casters and everything else becomes truly palpable, give or take a few levels depending on which casting class it is.
The skill system is absolute dog doodoo.
The game feels like it is designed with new players in mind. If you use it to introduce new players to tabletop they run the risk of getting attached to it and not wanting to play anything else due to how friendly it is. Though I guess the same could be said of other systems.

>and potentially strongest fighter.
Battle Master has the most damage over 4 turns of the three archetypes.
After 7 turns of combat, Champion does the most average damage average. (for rounds 5 and 6, battlemaster remains little ahead but now falling off due to being out of superiority dice.)
Eldritch Knight lacks the sheer weight of numbers that the other two have, but obviously gets minor spellcasting to shore up his abilities.

It was a bad joke on my part, Rangers were classified as a Warrior class in 2nd edition.
My bad.

Okay. Guess I shoulda caught that, I. Was about to go full butt hurt.

You have a valid point which I agree with,too. Sorry for calling you a retard.

Battle Master can also completely blow their load in one turn and wreck just about anything by using an action surge (And maybe dual wielding for that one extra attack) and dumping all of their superiority dice into damage boosts for those attacks.

In the absence of credible evidence, there is no reason to believe god exists. If some sort of god does exist, it's phenomenally unlikely to resemble our popular, laughably shortsighted, anthropomorphized conceptions of godhood. But we know that 5e exists, plenty of people have experience with it, and the workings of the system, itself, can be at least partially quantified, so I'm not sure what one thing has to do with the other.

Why is there always a Dungeon World Homer in these kinds of threads?

Both 5e and DW barely have rules that aren't just grognard bullshit, so simplicity of play isn't a selling point on either. Chargen on DW's side is simpler inasmuch as there are fewer options, but the starting option bit in 5e's class writeup achieves similar ends.

If you're going to suck PbtA cock, at least recommend World of Dungeons instead.

Why does everything have so much fucking HP?

Because you're not supposed to die. Heroic fantasy works fine, you need some fundamental changes via houserules to do something else unless you wanna keep the party level 1-2 a whole game.

Alternatively, if you meant monsters, it's because of the burst damage potential I think, even if it's short rest and such an encounter ending in one turn isn't desirable.

I GM a game of 5e and I pretty much halve all monsters' hp. Works juuuust fine.

>an encounter ending in one turn isn't desirable.
It's far more preferable to dragging an encounter out to 5 rounds with autoattacks, that's for fucking sure.

Hey I didn't say I like it, just what the designers / bad GMs that want to show of their special monster OCs want to be the case.

That made sense when the game had monsters that had interesting abilities. You know, in 4E, a tactical game.

In 5E, which is basically just a stripped down version of 3E, that is no longer the case, and instead it makes combat incredibly fucking tedious on top of it feeling like everyone is fighting with nerf bats. You can't use AD&D damage in a game with 3E HP.

I mean for GMs that make homebrew monsters and fall in love with them, most vanilla monsters do have quite boring abilities. Things like shadows though, if they die before draining any strength then they didn't do anything cool mechanically. Not that that's a bad thing.

>tfw my friend thinks 5E is unbalanced while Pathfinder is not
Is he crazy?

That depends. Do you consider beaten housewives/people with Stockholm syndrome to be crazy?

Nah its cool,
I forget that on the internet it's hard to do sarcasm well.

...

Pandering to the lowest common denominator of unwashed fedorabeard scum for twenty years.

Well I don't agree on your point about Fighter. I basically made Solid Snake in my latest campaign. Took range and stealth feats, and combat maneuvers. Had a fighter who not only could tank, but also disarm, trip enemies at range AND stealth for scouting. Pretty versatile.

It's alright.

100% this desu.

So you guys hate D&D in general or just 5e?

What games do you play?

I hate anything that appeals to lower middle class retards who can't be bothered to read a book or peel themselves away from CoD 37.

I dig AD&D 1e, Hackmaster, Nobilis, Numenera, and GURPS in no particular order.

Oh, so you're just a shiteater.

Can you start using a trip? I'd love to filter all of your opinions from now on.

>I hate anything people likes and I don't

Numenera looks pretty cool sempai.

I'm digging the aesthetic.

Good enough.

>options
Most of 3.X's options were just there for show. Like the hundreds of feats, most of which were just there so there'd be hundreds of feats. E.g. Mounted Archery doesn't really give you anything new to do, it just reduces the arbitrary penalties that were added so there could be a Mounted Archery feat.

And there are more skills, but that means that if your character plays the trumpet, you have to put a rank into Perform: Trumpet (two if it's cross-class) instead of just saying "Oh, and my character knows how to play the trumpet."

And if we were to bring Pathfinder into it, it's even worse. Anyone should be able to start a rumor, but since it's a Rogue Talent, it'd be unfair to someone who took Rumormonger to let just anyone start a rumor. In a practical sense, 3.X having "more options" resulted in fewer options compared to early and later editions.

You seem like a man of refined and excellent taste so I'm going to look into the games you listed that I didn't recognize. I will probably like them.

He did and he got permabanned for it.

Shh... almost had him...

Amazingly enough, the fighter for 5ed is probably the most diverse a fighter has ever been in D&D history.

Being able to move between attacks also is massive step up in terms of martial viability this time around too.

>look up Numenera
>Monte Cook
>Kickstarter
Nevermind you're a shit eater, fuck you.

GURPS, Nobilis, Hackmaster, and AD&D 1e didn't tip you off?

It's ok.
It's not terrible and it's not great. It's pretty much a vanilla, inoffensive version of modern d&d.
It's easy to houserule for though, so it can be a good game in the right gm's hands.

AD&D is alright.

The thing about 3.5 feats is that most were utter garbage never worth taking

But some of them could combine in ludicrous, unforseen ways to produce hilarious results

And that's what makes 3.5 fun, it's not about playing, it's about character building.

But that isn't really role-playing, is it? It shouldn't be marketed as a "role-playing game", it should be marketed as an "exercise in loopholes and manipulation of obscure material" which sounds like it'd appeal to the bad-guy defense attorney in every movie or TV show with a bad-guy defense attorney.

It's fine for what it was, but it's such an outdated system. It really just doesn't hold up.

Overall, each of those systems has its good points, but they're hardly the cream of the crop.

Hey, it's not like 3.5 being fun was intentional or anything

The intended product was dead on arrival, supported simply by being in the right place at the right time. But the ocean of material that followed turned it into something really fun and totally unforseen. Simply because of how busted it was at its heart

That' strangely comforting, yet terrifying.

>Impossible to deny.
Wut? we can prove no global flood happend, therefor the god from abrahamic religion does not exist, because otherwise there would have been a major flood a few thousands years ago.

It's weird that Millenials and Grognards enjoy this kind of revisionism. Kind of like the old "grandparents and grandchildren against the parents" kind of thing, where they both happen to be wrong but from two completely different angles.

The former is wrong because of spite and stubbornness, while the latter is wrong because of ignorance and the adolescent compulsion to rebel.

>This
Looking at the playtest material and what could have been makes me weep.

>where they both happen to be wrong
3.5 was cancer, get over it.

Nope, that highest fighter versatility goes to 4th ed, which also have a bit of attack-move-attack in it.

>therefor the god from abrahamic religion does not exist
Nah, that would only prove either:
1) The story's supposed to be a parable and not taken literally.
2) That the bible's wrong, regardless of any god's existence

Underrated

It's good.

As an aging grognard who thinks everything since Advanced Second edition has been dumbed-down and unplayably bad:

Fifth Edition is actually pretty good. It hits a perfect 'sweet spot' of balanced mechanics and character customization. I like it.

It feels artificial to me. Not like something a lot of love got put in but three ideas thrown together into an okay-ish working mix. It lacks soul.

It's still not bad, but I will not GM it again until they finally add some more monsters so that Lv 10+ I have more than fucking one to five per CR to choose from.

>3rd edition saved roleplaying games

It's a landmark title that revitalized a failing industry and has been used as the inspiration for hundreds of games after it, with accolades and awards showered upon it for aspects of design that many younger players now take for granted. It still remains as the second most played game (after 5e) even after all this time, is an essential part of any roleplayers collection if they plan on entering a discussion about roleplaying games, and with so many infinite ways to play and remix the system to your liking, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that your opinion hardly outweighs the far more weighted opinion of industry experts and the larger gaming community.

It was a great game, is still a great game, and shitposting on the internet will hardly change that.

Get over it.

>different people have different tastes in different things and this upsets me
You'd figure that after like 30 pigfucking years of edition-warring you cats would get sick of this shit.

You do know that ninjas were separate thing from rogues in 2e right?

3.5 saved roleplaying because it got new people to play. But it also gave us OGL, which gave us shit.
I liked 3.5, but I know bad design when I see it.

>Fighter can fight
Everyone can fight. The wizard fights with spells, the rogue fights sneakily, the cleric buffs up and then fights, the druid turns into fighting bear, ect.
It's a game about fighting monsters. Being the fightguy in your party means dick because everyone can do your job as well as whatever they normally do. Sure they can't do it with a sword shield and armour but they can do a pretty bang-up job still.

Since every class gets scaling HP, Damage and multiple offensive options it's hard to see what makes a fighters job special. Even a slight increase in toughness and damage doesn't off set the massive loss in utility that comes from being physical-fight-specialist.

The class "fighter" only makes sense if no one else is that good at fighting. This was the case in OD&D where the wizard couldn't fight for shit, even with spells and the cleric was usually even with the basic monsters the party was going up against.

The 5e fighter is way more fun than the 3e version and the game does work. However I think the class is due for a serious update. Most modern D&D classes are based more around a theme than a mechanical role. They can do a bunch of neat shit linked to an archtype save the fighter who still just swings a sword all day.

No actually, I guess that was a bad pick.
It would be more like the barbarian or the amazon packages from complete handbook of fighter.

>save the fighter who still just swings a sword all day.

What exactly do you expect a fighter to do?

That's like rolling a wizard and complaining that all you do is cast spells all day.

Fucking martialfags... If you don't enjoy swinging a sword then may I suggest you roll a different class?