D&D 5e Worth Getting Back Into the Game?

It's still significantly less so then the prior two editions by fairly a silly margin.

Though that said there's precious little reason to multiclass in more than 3 classes, MAYBE 4 at the absolute most. Which IMO is much better than 3.5e where you'd end up with A 3/ B 1/ C 5/ D 3 / E 7 etc.

Meh, I never had a problem with caster supremacy because in the campaign I ran, I always, always made situations and encounters that let individual PC's shine when appropriate. Never went past 11th level, though, and I well-aware of what 20th+ level casters are capable of.

Okay, I was just giving a warning about the complexity thing.
Other then that the ease of "pick up and go" to the game means it's pretty easy to try out, decide you don't like, then drop it if that's your choice.

I once showed a new player how to make a character (a Wizard too, so fairly complex compared to other classes) in just a bit less then fifteen minutes and that was all he needed to do to make it playable when he was late for the group.

>I honestly liked the complexity of 3.5, but didn't particularly enjoy dealing with my PC's using splats to make all sorts of twink shit.

That's always up to the GM though.
You can pick and choose what splat you like and ban what you don't like. Part of what makes the system great is all the options but they're just that.

Only an idiot would consider everything all together, including Pazio's fucktarded errata.

I guess you will need to spell this out for me. Are you implying that 3.X and Pathfinder are too complex with their algorithms? Because while I can agree with that statement, it's not the only factor in overall design.

Depends on how you define it I guess.

Rituals+utility spells put casters way above martials in everything but combat... and they are not THAT much behind in combat, especially if you twink a bit.

But if you only consider combat, yeah, they are fine until about ~10-ish, then the skeletons start reaching critical mass.

I'm saying that their mixing of natural language with rules verbiage leads to unclear rules that take up way more space than they should. It's not a matter of complexity, it's a matter of clarity.

So... RPability of 3.X with the combat of 4e? I could get behind that.

>with the combat of 4e

Hahahahaha.

No.

More like the RP of 4e with the combat of 3.5 sans opportunity attacks for everything and instant kill rocket tags, and without the near infinite amount of small bonuses of either.

It's not a bad game, mind, but combat is not really like 4e.

Opportunity Attacks are in 5e. Generally only 1 per character per round though, if that small number was what you were referring to.

5E is essentially classic D&D, with a feeling closer to AD&D than any other edition. It's a fairly rules light system that uses bounded accuracy to keep everything fairly evenly balanced but retains the old school feel of the game.

advantage/disadvantage is great to adjudicate things on the fly you lose a degree of verisimilitude but with the plus of being able to attempt a lot more in game and not have to remember a huge amount of situational modifiers.

Proficiency essentially replaces skill ranks , it essentially provides a flat bonus to whatever you're good at and can be gained through tools as well as. Your background. A lot of fluffy things are hand waved as a result. You don't need to put points into playing a violen or crafting you can just do it if you're proficient.

There's therefore also no skill checks, just ability checks and likewise every stat is a save so no more fort, will, reflex. And you can make intelligent saves now for example.

it's not perfect of course but there's certainly a focus on balance and ease of use. As I say it loses out in a certain amount of depth and 'realism' for want of a better word. Advantage and disadvantage just cancel each other out for example so you can't stack various circumstantial bonuses like say tracking a bleeding creature through mud at night in the rain but with your pet hound and work it out 'exactly' but it makes doing things on the fly more easy.

Combat is pretty simple and bridles. Cantrips are more powerful but fights are mostly those and basic attacks then the limited spell effects. Doing a lot of combat maneuvers is a lot simpler , there's far less attacks of opportunity so players are a lot more free to grapple, disarm , trip and so on as well as the more creative environmental stuff.

It's the most fun I've had playing D&D and it's totally anti munchkin/ rules lawyer so I love it . Give it a try!

You don't get an opportunity attack for shit like standing up, walking around someone, attempting a combat maneuver, etc. all of which work in 3.PF.

I actually have a player bitching about wanting to get an AoO for every fucking thing, cause that1s how it worked in PF.

Now you're making me question the whole system. I personally found the combat of 3.X a little clunky at times, but the RP was fantastic. I never actually played 4e, but the combat *seemed* to be much easier to handle.

My biggest problem with 4e was how it seemed to throw classes and races into a pseudo-vidja system. I loved tabletop because it wasn't a CRPG.

4e RP is actually the same as all the other modern D&Ds, people just got salty about the skill list being shorter and the skill points being gone (which is the same in 5e).

The combat is un-cluncked, but it's also not really similar to 4e, focusing on "theater of mind" instead of precise positioning stuff, and martials are back to using the same attacks over and over (but at least on the off chance you want to try something else, you are not penalized for it).

I will certainly concede that 4e trumps when it comes to clarity. But I'd take the arcane nature of 3.X over the vidya system of 4e any day of the year.

I loved the skill list and thought it was a great way of giving characters depth. Any good group can roleplay fantastically with any decent system, but I like it when the game actually caters to making your character "feel" developed.

The problem with 4E RP was that combats took 3 hours each so you didn't have enough time to RP in between tactically choosing the most optimal option for your hundred combat rounds.

Likewise there was also fuck loads of disassociated mechanics that were impossible to make sense of or interact with outside if the tactical combat grid.

>combats took 3 hours each

Use MM3 math.

They are about 90% the same aside from most non-essentials classes using the same power layout in 4e. But that's kinda why essentials was made.

It just puts "daily" on things instead of writing "once a day you can do X you regain use of this ability when you finish a long rest", and then you have the elf bitching about him only needing 4 hours of rest because trance leading into a 30 minute long argument that not even showing the FAQ to his dense fucking face ended HOLY SHIT FRANK SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HOW IT'S UNFAIR THAT YOU DON'T GET TO CAST TWICE AS MUCH. GOD.

But that's true for all D&D since AD&D. It's a combat game first and foremost. If you want something that's not focused on combat, why play D&D?

Alternatively, don't play with retards.

Obligatory jab here about how that becomes easier and easier nowdays as they flock to 5e, but honestly, 5e is pretty good.

Combats still take an inordinate amount of time whatever math you did because you were forced to use a grid and had to throw 4-5 combats at the players daily to challenge them because of the huge bags of hit points and abilities . Not to mention tracking the huge amount of situational modifiers and abilities.

You could RP in it but you can technically RP when you play mage knight or Warhammer it doesn't make them great role playing games.

Please no, this'll become a discussion about how old editions were achtchually about avoiding combat and combat was the worst case scenario etc.

Plus you can't deny that 4e was the only edition that actually took the time to try and make the combat feel good instead of the designers just going "close enough!".

In that way, it really is the most combat focused edition.

>My biggest problem with 4e was how it seemed to throw classes and races into a pseudo-vidja system. I loved tabletop because it wasn't a CRPG.
Every single system with more than the barest minimum of combat rules does that, but 4e is at least honest about it.

3.PF has the same amount of modifiers, sometimes even more.

5e gives the players the same amount of recovery, but forgets to use a limiter like Healing Surges were. I had combats where the barbarian went down 4 tomes, each time being picked up by a single first level spell by the cleric in 5e as a fucking bonus action.

To make matters worse, most 5e monsters aside from the high level legendary ones are either boring as fuuuuuuuck with no notable special ability to speak of aside from maybe an auto-grapple on hit, or are casters, and can essentially oneshot the party on a lucky/unlucky roll (but then, the party can also oneshot them so it's fine).

You can have an interesting combat focused role playing game that doesn't involve 3 hour long tactical slug fests. The entirety of 4E was so heavily built towards tactical combat encounters that it didn't leave breathing room for much of anything else.

Likewise it had huge amounts of disassociated mechanics which are the anti-thesis of role playing for me.

>Likewise it had huge amounts of disassociated mechanics which are the anti-thesis of role playing for me.

Name one. And please not fucking bloody path.

Thanks for all the input everyone! I need to drive my roommate to work (still not sure how the hell he will function when I move back to CA), but will continue to read/reply if this thread is still up in ~20 minutes.

Just wanted to post this in the event that it 404's. :)

Essentially if a character in the game can't explain what is happening with a certain mechanic it's disassociated.

The rogues Trick Strike or pretty much any martial Daily Power fits this. They've learned this powerful attack but there's no explanation as to why they can only do it once per day beyond its a game mechanic.

Likewise fighters Marks are the same. There's no explanation as why you can force an enemy to attack you at a penalty to others, even if they're blind or unintelligent or anything else , beyond its a game mechanic.

>There's no explanation as why you can force an enemy to attack you at a penalty to others.

I find that you being able to attack anyone else willy-nilly while being harassed by a fighter is more immersion breaking than the opposite (marks, that is).

Why can't everyone mark?

Are you saying that a ranger isn't as threatening as a fighter?

Why can't everyone throw fireballs?

Simply put, he isn't trained in being as harassing as the fighter. He's still threatening, hence AoOs and flanking and stuff, but not to the same degree.

You can choose to attack another target and risk the fighter attacking you via attacks of opportunity etc which makes in game character sense.

"I wanted to race up and smash tht annoying Elf wizard but had to suffer the blows of that monstrous half orc in front of him to do it "

There is nothing about a fighter that makes them more THREATENING than a ranger who will eviscerate you.

The point is that the fighter is trained in a style that interferes more with opponents that try to attack allies than the ranger. This could be about being threatening (fighters can train in intimidate after all) but could be pure martial skill focused on defensiveness instead of offensiveness like the ranger.

The ranger can't do it because he is trained in a different style. He can pick it up by multiclassing (or themes, or any of the other methods available) if he wants to.

Sure, the Fighter is also better at that, but he can also interfere when you are already standing right next to him.

Is this really so hard to accept? I mean, I can see it is, but I'm not sure what the hangup is.

>It focuses more on the roleplay aspect

Whenever I see a roleplaying game claim to do this, it gets instantly dropped. So fuckign sick of the smug superior "yeah we ROLEPLAY unlike you ROLL PLAYING you stupid fuck" attitude that they think is marketing.

5ed is the best edition I have played since AD&D.

Does it have faults? Yeah, pretty much any d20 focused system does, but on the whole it is pretty easy to get into, combat is solid, RP elements are solid, and the game itself is just well done from the ground up.

To be honest though, the best fantasy rpg I have played is still Warhammer Fantasy RPG 3e. It had a lot of bits and bobs to it, but it really did a lot of roleplaying stuff better than anything else I have played to the point I use some of the stuff from that system to make 3e better.

The biggest thing? A progress track. Simple line with ten dot on it and a big dot in the middle with a token on the bottom of the dots and a token on the top. Top is bad guys, bottom is players.

While the players do shit, the top token moves every so often (if they are asking the wrong questions in the wrong part of town, not keeping a low profile, or just fucking off) and if they mess up bad enough, it will jump forward pretty fast as a big clue they fucked up.

At the mid point, something has changed from a story point.

For example, the group is trying to find a stolen dragon egg. They ask around a tavern for clues and get some information (bottom advances a tick) and start following leads without paying off their source, silencing him in any way, or covering up that they had been there (top advances).

They find the guy who actually committed the theft (he was paid to do so and passed the egg off) and proceeded to have a foot chase with him. They lose (top advances by two).

To make it simple, the bad guys get to the halfway mark which causes the egg to be moved to a different location, be put under better lock and guard, and the BBEG is now on the scene.

If they would have made it halfway before the bad guys, they would have found the location before they had moved it. However, if they didn't act quickly, the bad guys would still get that marker half-way and move the egg to make it more of a whore to get.

>with a feeling closer to AD&D than any other edition

Confirmed for never playing AD&D

Complex subsystems and once per day second wind abilities are a 4e thing borne of late 3.5. They have nothing to do with and feel nothing like AD&D and it is very clear you never played it.

D&D 5e tried to pander to grognards and it was a fucking terrible idea. Guess what, Wizards of the Coast? Grogs don't want to play the new edition, because they already have their AD&D group they've been in for 30 years. Or they are playing Lamentations of the fucking Flame Princess and jacking off to the NSFW art.

inb4 some "grognard" tries to talk about 5e "renewed his interest in the hobby" and act like the 5% of 5e players who were into AD&D somehow justifies designing the system to pander to them. Just like the 5% of trannies who play D&D, justifies designing the system to pander to them.

The tracker can be used for chase mechanics as well.

On the whole, it just adds urgency to the parties actions and keeps them moving forward instead of wasting time. It also serves as a clue that they are on the wrong path and should investigate elsewhere.

The mechanic also makes the world feel less static.

If they happen to let the top marker get all the way to the end when they haven't even reached half-way? Bad guys win. Quest is over. You fucking failed.

Back.

I suppose the most pressing question I have regarding 5e is how the game handles proficiencies vs. how 3.X handled skills. Can you pick up additional proficiencies? How do they improve?

>5ed is the best edition I have played since AD&D.

You provide literally zero evidence to back this up so your opinion is invalid as far as this thread is concerned.

WFRP 3e is fucking garbage. That track sounds like absolute shit and yet another one of these "story mechanics" that just restricts the plot of the game for no reason.

If you want a good fantasy roleplaying game, try Dungeon World. It's the best RPG out there on the market currently. It has fast easy to use mechsnics and is perfect for beginners, it's a lot cheaper than most of these other rules bloated systems that cost fifty dollars. There is no reason for extra rules when it is he role playing that matters. Dungeon World is fast and innovative and still feels exactly like the spirit of ADND before DnD 3.5 destroyed the hobby and ruined a generation of role players.

There's an optional rule for learning more profs, as well as a feat that gives you 3 extra (which is also an optional rule now that I think about it, but I have heard of no parties playing without feats yet). Your bonuses for shit you are proficient in (be it weapons, tools or skills) improve automatically as you level.

You are either a troll, or an idiot.

DW's fronts and how they advance are actually pretty damn close to that track thing.

This... tracker thing sounds disgustingly meta to me. Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, but isn't part of the fun of tabletop the immersion of it all? Things like this would make me feel like I'm playing vidya, which is not what I want from tabletop.

This tracker sounds like something a DM would employ and keep secret from the players. If the party gets "lost," isn't it up to the DM to arrange some clever, inconspicuous method to put them back on the trail?

>Can you pick up additional proficiencies?

Lol. No. That's the problem with proficiency. I like the idea but there are downsides and the fucktastic way 5e implements a lot of its good ideas are honestly most of my issue with it.

> How do they improve?

Your proficiency bonus increases by 1 every few levels. It is basically 1/5th level + 2. I wish it was 1/2 level + 2, then it'd max out at +12, which is a pretty decent amount, but fuck it, the bounded accuracy is pretty decent.

>try Dungeon World

Dungeon World is an aborted mishap of the much better Apocalypse World.

It's a fucking injustice that Sage LaTorra and Adam Koebel get jerked off to for Dungeon World.

You can, but it is pretty rare without taking feats.

You add your proficiency bonus to the appropriate skill if you are proficient in it.

For example, at level 5 you have a +3 prof bonus. That means if you have a skill you are prof in, you add that +3 and whatever modifier your stat adds as well instead of just the stat modifier.

With weapons you are not proficient in? you still use them, you just don't get the prof bonus for attacks. Shields? You still wear it fine, but get disadvantage to all strength and dexterity checks (same with wearing armor you aren't prof with). This isn't attacks and defense, but trip attacks, opposed strength rolls for grapples, skills that rely on those stats, etc all confer a disadvantage so it isn't a great idea to use armor you are not proficient with.

Go ham with a weapon though, you will just not get that sweet, sweet attack advantage.

In another context though, can you play D&D by yourself? I've never played D&D before and I don't have friends to play it with.

Dungeon World is a game based around "story mechanics" where a DM can say a dragon rips your arm off just cos but it doesn't matter anyway to your character.

Do different classes have differing amounts of proficiencies? Are there class restrictions on them? It makes me feel like the characters are rather static after creation, but then again, I have no experience with the system.

>DW's fronts and how they advance are actually pretty damn close to that track thing.

Except, unlike your shitty system where everything needs to be rulesrulesrules, the Dungeon World fronts system is open and freeform and is simply a tool for the GM to brainstorm, not a set of mechanics for him to follow. For a real gamemaster who doesn't need a ton of rules to tell him how to game, it is objectively superior.

I think some old editions had enough random tables that you could play by yourself but it feels kinda self defeating.

IIRC the classes generally have the same amount of profs (although some classes get extra tool profs, like the rogue). The characters are somewhat static I guess, but you do get new abilities every level.

A common trait they share with you is that they are both just tools.

The tracker isn't there to put people on track when they get lost, it is a reminder that they have something that should be doing and it is a way to let them know that the bad guys are not being static in trying to accomplish their goal.

To be fair, there are plenty of times when such a mechanic is uncalled for and I wouldn't use it. Raiding an ancient tomb for an artifact? No tracker. That tomb isn't going to suddenly change.

Your party and another party are after the same bounty? Better believe that is a tracker situation. You have something actively racing you for a similar goal.

I have played with and without a tracker for chases and quests that are supposed to be urgent. The trackers use is almost always the better way to go because it makes the players tense and provide a big sense of urgency in them which is the whole idea.

No tracker and they aren't all that urgent. That leads to people getting gay marriage legalized while the lich takes over the kingdom.

I've heard some murmurings of this RPG, but my first priority is finding a group that actually functions and is great to play with. I'm looking at D&D/PF simply because I have a decent amount of experience with the system and could fit into a group nicely.

Once/if I find one, I might look into DW. It sounds interesting. But it would definitely require a solid group of people to get off of the ground.

>A common trait they share with you is that they are both just tools.

Nope. Your is a restriction. Mine is meant to organize, not strangle. Saying "oh but you don't have to use the rules that they say you are supposed to use" is complete bullcrap, it's like excusing shittily designed systems like 5e as "just homebrew it bro!". Utter bullcrap.

meant to reply to

Yeah, rogue get more. Your class and your background give you prof with skills and a tool or instrument. At max a non-rouge will have about four skills they are proficient with and one tool, instrument, or game.

A rogue? Looking at about six skills and their class provides expertise allowing them to double up on some shit. I remember my rogue having +9 to stealth checks at level 2 for example. So they have more skills and a bigger boon to those that they do have for the most part.

The bigger thing is how they pretty much always have a sneak attack bonus all the fucking time in 5e.

Dungeon World story mechanics are *literally* things the DM has to follow. The entire game is based around the DM having to make a strict set of moves based around the players actions. It literally tells DM'S what to do in every situation mechanically that's the entire point of the system.

It's even less free from than D&D where DM'S do have a choice.

It's not my game/mechanic/whatever you fucking idiot. I haven't even played WFRP.

>Dungeon World story mechanics are *literally* things the DM has to follow. The entire game is based around the DM having to make a strict set of moves based around the players actions.

While technically true, this is because DM moves basically cover everything worthwhile you could do. You also aren't forced into them, you get to pick from multiple ones.

You all need to kill yourselves. It is clear that you have no idea what the FUCK you are talking about, and I am absolutely sick of it.

First off, Dungeon World forces the DM to obey rules just like the players, he cannot just handwave rule zero because there is no need for rule zero, everything can be accomplished within the bounds of the rules. There are no character "builds" in Dungeon World, so there are no powergamers, which is probably why you are all so butthurt, because you are rollplayers who don't want to try something else.

Also it doesn't matter if Apocalypse World is much better, OP wanted heroic fantasy, and Dungeon World is here to fulfill that promise. Dungeon World is also a clear step above D&D or any game of its kind. It is absolutely fantastic tight design that has been lauded by designers from all over the roleplaying community.

Also, OP, if your only excuse for playing Dungeon World (and you have no excuse for not playing Dungeon World) is "I can't find a group to play with" then you are a lazy piece of shit. It is easy as fuck to get a group to try Dungeon World, and it is far cheaper than D&D. If your players are not willing to try Dungeon World, they are not worth playing with, and their lives really aren't worth living to be perfectly honest. Fucking closeminded fucks.

It is clear that you don't understand Dungeon World mechanics at all so I would ask you to stop talking about them before you embarass yourself further.

> It's even less free from than D&D where DM'S do have a choice.

No, giving them those moves gives them more freedom, fucktard. It structures the game so that something is always happening. Whereas D&D the DM has the "freedom" to let the story just sit there while they jack off.

You're forced by RAW to pick from multiple ones.

What if none of them appeal?

You have no choice. I like free will in my role playing games.

>What if none of them appeal?

I can't think of a situation that's possible in, especially since you can interpret them pretty liberally.

You know, I'll just take you at face value and accept that you like DW and are using some kind of reverse-reverse psychology to get people to play it.

You are still a dickhead, however, and everyone would prefer if you stopped posting.

If you have a PC and a reliable internet connection, or have reliable access to a library with open PCs, you can go on roll20.net to look for people to play with.

Just be sure to read all the stuff the GM has posted about any campaign that catches your eye; believe me, being in a game with furries or other magical realm stuff is worse than not being in a game at all.

I resent being called lazy. I tried for a long, long time finding a group during my college days. What I found were either twinks or nerdcore people trying to be trendy. This likely has everything to do with the university I attended. I gave up once I got into the upper level courses for my degree because academics became demanding. Now I'm moving back to a state I haven't lived in for over six years. My old friends are scattered to the four winds and while we occasionally fantasize of getting something going online, it inevitably turns into "it wouldn't have the magic of sitting around the table together."

I am an easy-going person, but when it comes to something like tabletop, if I'm not having fun, it's not worth my time. I need all of my fingers and toes to count the number of groups I've joined and dropped out of because the group and myself were playing for different reasons. I admit, it's probably more my fault that theirs because I am more discerning, but the fact remains.

I still haven't appraised the scene in the city I'm moving to. I'll keep DW on my radar when I start looking in about a month, and I appreciate the recommendation.

But please, don't make assumptions about me.

DW is babby's first roleplaying game, and if you haven't been able to grow beyond it,. you're an unimaginative autist.

Go away Virt.

More ad hominem bullshit. Try attacking Dungeon World instead of me. You are the one who is wrong here, not me.

Well that's your own damned fault for moving away from your home state. Try getting into a field where you can find jobs in your home state, dumbass. It's what I did. It's called actually planning your life. If you don't get what you want from life, it's because YOU failed at planning.

>DW is babby's first roleplaying game

[citation needed]

It's the best edition of D&D wizards has put out.

Still D&D though.

>5E is essentially classic D&D, with a feeling closer to AD&D than any other edition.
You can fuck right off with that. It felt nothing like AD&D did and the ridiculous amount of HP compared to damage didn't help.

> I started on 3.0 in middle school and then switched to 3.5 in HS.

> It's the best edition of D&D wizards has put out.

Fair enough.

>Well that's your own damned fault for moving away from your home state. Try getting into a field where you can find jobs in your home state, dumbass. It's what I did. It's called actually planning your life. If you don't get what you want from life, it's because YOU failed at planning.

I moved out-of-state because it let me go to a $50k+ a year private institution for free for five years, letting me pick up two degrees and build a network. Leaving my home state to avoid debt and have money in the bank afterwards was a sound decision. I'm moving back to CA partly because I miss my family and partly because I will make more money there than here. How in the *fuck* do you think it's all right to assume that because I went to college in a different state that I suffered from a "failure to plan?"

>There are no character "builds" in Dungeon World, so there are no powergamers, which is probably why you are all so butthurt, because you are rollplayers who don't want to try something else.

Unless it's entirely freeform, I don't see how any system couldn't have optimal choices and therefore some characters which are objectively, mechanically better at doing things than other characters.

I find it somewhat more likely that Dungeon World doesn't have powergamers due to a lack of a large enough player base to support them.

5e is not at all like AD&D and even less like 4e. If anything, 5e is 3.5 except with less attacks of opportunity, no real skill system, and one-modifier-fits-all (advantage/disadvantage). I do not believe it was ever meant to reconcile edition fans (as some seem to believe) or cater to old-school players. Rather, its goal is to get those players who like 3.5 but don't like its complexity.

If that is you, then go for it. I cannot tell you if it is worth getting into, as that depends on your tastes, not mine. Do you like simple, quick games? Go for 5e. You want something with tactical depth? Don't. Its that simple.

>More ad hominem bullshit. Try attacking Dungeon World instead of me.

See, the problem is that I actually don't have a problem with DW. I have a problem with you being a dick.

>You are the one who is wrong here, not me.

I guess, I never considered that possibility... hmm...

...

Nope, I still think you should probably kill yourself.

Why are you even bothering to respond to a "muh bootstraps" retard?

What are you talking about? My group is playing through one of the modules right now and most single monster combat encounters can easily two shot me.

And you can't do it back to them. Not even close.

And the problem gets worse and worse with each level.

The same reason people are responding to a very obvious troll, presumably.

Veeky Forums never changes.

Hah, not sure. Kneejerk, I guess.

>and the ridiculous amount of HP compared to damage didn't help.

Confirmed for having not actually played 5E.

Depending on the archetype of the enemy, yes I can. God knows the GWF Barb can. And we're not even a particularly optimized party.

Thread should have ended here when it was clear OP was too simple minded to benefit from advice.

Confirmed for never touching a level past 3 in 5E. Go look at a Balor's stats.

Are you retarded? Virt hated DW.

Few people in this thread are actually here to help OP. Most are here to edition war with each other.

This may have been OP's intent in the first place.

D&D 5e is popular because D&D fans are basically a 40 year old housewife whose husband has Erectile Dysfunction. She gets excited the one time her husband can achieve a goddamn erection.

That's basically what happened with D&D 5e. People were so sick of 3.5 and 4e and the constant edition wars between the two, and how complex both were, that they were happy for ANYTHING that wasn't a third attempt at something "new."

As a result, 5e has very few new ideas that couldn't be learned by visiting a basic game design advice website. Unified mechanics, bounded accuracy, et cetera. Hell even background mechanics are 20 years old, this isn't something Wizards came up with. They are twenty years behind the times in terms of game design and have been holding back the entire RPG community. The thing is, D&D's legacy mechanics are a core part of its identity, so the more they change, the less reason D&D has to exist at all.

That's cause you're 1st or 2nd level dumb ass. Also he did say that the game increased damage to compensate so no shit. If you have 5 hp and monsters deal 5 damage, then go up to 10th level and have 50 hp and monsters deal 50 damage, it's the same goddamn thing in the end. And it's still a shitty idea.

Thanks for the concise, relevant comparison between 5e and the systems I'm familiar with.

At the end of the day, I could take or leave the tactical depth of the combat. There are plenty of other avenues for that. I'm really just concerned with how much the system caters to roleplaying and a strong sense of uniqueness for the PC's. As I said before, any group can RP well given any system, but I like those that are naturally more conducive.