This probably gets asked all the time, but how is D&D 5th Edition?
I played 3rd Edition back in high school but skipped 4th Edition after moving to Japan. I'd like to get my friends here into D&D and was wondering if 5th Edition would be a good place to start?
It's pretty good.
Its great. Its like 3rd edition but simpler and more balanced. Power levels are slightly lower though.
>and was wondering if 5th Edition would be a good place to start?
Yes and yes. It's undisputed that 5e is a good place to start.
Thanks, guys. I'll be sure to check it out.
If you liked 3rd edition, 5th supplies that without as much abusable/nonsensical RAW. There's lots of toys to play with in regards to classes/backgrounds/builds, and there's shitloads of worldbuilding materials for burgeoning DMs (advice, settings, splats, houserules, etc.).
It's got a bit of 2e's restrained numbers and potentially nasty combat, some of 3e's crunch (emphasized builds, feats/skills/stat bonuses, lots of classes, etc.), and 4e's focus on combat and balance (most classes are at LEAST usable, with a couple blatant exceptions). There's something for everybody.
And if there isn't, it's a very open, flexible system. Advantage/disadvantage and shit makes it easy to make shit up on the fly, and in general it's a great place for new players to start.
6th Edition isn't coming out anytime soon, right? I don't want to throw down money on 5th if it'll be obsolete in a year or two.
I strongly suspect that 5th will be the last edition. After it ends Hasbro might push out the occasional anniversary anthology so they can retain the license.
5e came out in 2014 and has been well-received and continually gaining popularity. With its unusually slow release schedule, no one can really say whether it'll last another 5 years or another 15.
But it'll be around for a handful of years to come, for sure.
It's boring as fuck. Stripping out most of the character customization and tactical depth and fun from 3e, it's dumbed down for a dumb audience.
it's very dumbed down and there are very few classes compared to 3.5 and pathfinder, and martials are absolute shit except for the rogue who got significantly buffed and casters got nerfed in terms of what they can do - but it's beginner friendly by doing so, for vets i would say it's a horrible piece of shit but for players just starting it can be a really good introduction
also the attributes capped at 20 thing is fucking retarded
Quite fun, but be prepared to put a bit more work in if you're the DM, since there's not a whole lot of stuff for it yet.
That seems like the opposite of retarded.
yeah, good, begginer friendly, not very advanced though. and people get annoyed because its basically 3rd edition if it was good.
Some people don't like the simpleness though. but hell, I love it, would never have gotten into tabletop/dnd without it.
Also
>I'd like to get my friends here into D&D and was wondering if 5th Edition would be a good place to start?
It definitely is. It's not difficult for first-timers to pick up at all.
if i wanted to play a non fantasy gimped ass human i'd play call of cthulu, and having it capped at 20 shits on both martials and casters although the casters feel it a lot less
It is. Also there's less of a dependency on feets in this version. Wanna do something weird in combat, ask the dm and let hem determine any penalties. It's not like there's probably a feet for that anyway.
Martials are fine btw. If you're so worried about a caster just just pin their ass to the ground and shove dirt in their mouth. Goodbye OP
>tactical depth
>3e
kek, here's your (you)
>martials are fine
when you get to high levels and you're averaging 40-60 dpr against boss mobs as a martial, it is not fine and it is not fun
It's easier to get into, mostly because there are many fewer options,and almost nothing synergizes with anything else. Most of the time, you can only keep up one buff spell at a time, and no bonuses really stack.
Literally all bonuses stack.
>except for the rogue who got significantly buffed
hahahaha
...
wait, you mean compared to PF? well, okay, true, but so was the fighter so...
What isn't good about a rogue now?
It would be good to start a group in, but it feels very unfinished after 3.5. RAW in 5e can lead to a lot of very stupid scenarios because they tried to keep the rules simpler. My pet peeve of the system is that there are almost no set DCs for skill checks. I enjoy a system where the players and the dm both know about what everyone can do rather than having every dc be arbitrary
I really like it, the only complaint I can level with it is there's a few places where they simplified rules a little too harshly at the expense of verisimilitude. Little things like if you're multiclassing a wizard cleric, all their avaliable spells get pooled together from a table (I'd like to think arcane spells and divine spells should be different things). Or how rangers (and warlocks with familiars) have to give up an attack for their companion to be able to attack (which was obviously a balance choice but just makes it feel like the companion is an alternate weapon for them). Luckily because the rules are pretty straightforward, it's really easy to houserule out some of the contrivances that were made in the interest of balance.
That aside I really really like what they did with spellcasting in general and the combination between vancian and spell point systems has a very nice feel to it.
> boss mobs
I think you're confusing DnD with a videogame.
Yeah you should be capped at 9999 damage, likey da finally fantasies. Do you not understand that damage numbers are arbitrary until scaled?
Better than the previous editions, miles better than PF. Still shit.
The word you're looking for is contextualized.
And they have context: you can pick up the MM and see what the ACs and HPs of the monsters are. You can pick the PHB up and look at what spells do.
Wait, Japanese people roleplay?
My experience with them is admittedly restricted to MMOs, but on those they've invariably acted like they have no idea what people are doing when encountering someone who's in character.
That it's entirely mediocre.
It doesn't deal exceptional damage, it's not exceptionally good at skills, and all that mobility is wasted in a system where positioning matters diddly.
Also, they are boring as fuck in combat, and their out of combat is still limited to what's possible to do with skills. Bard obsoletes them really fucking hard.
They even have a GURPS community.
5th edition is imo a great "Best of" D&D, pulling different parts of what makes each edition giving it good support. Also, because of where were (US) at culturally, it's only been growing in popularity.
liad?
It's pretty mediocre due to having a low skill ceiling, monsters that have little in the way of interesting abilities and the fact that it subscribes to the "GM is god" mentality. All in all, it just makes for a rather dull gaming experience.
>not realizing 20 is near demigod level
>not realizing your group can ignore caps
>not playing CoC enough to know it at all
user you're making sympathy really hard
It's like 2e was a discus, 3e was a shuriken, 4e was a javelin, and 5e is a frisbee.
You can have a lot of fun with a frisbee.
pathshitters have forever revoked any opinion of theirs on balance. Also, martials as a whole are quite good, actually, and are only lacking a bit in OoC utility.
It is also not 'dumbed down' at all, it just doesn't require you to have 3 feats and a prestige class to do ordinary tasks.
it is, the 20 cap is awesome. it makes effects that go beyond it (like potions) really good, and it reigns in people from just stacking one stat to kingdom come.
look at all these cucks
Self deprecation is NEVER okay, user.
Honestly, nothing special.
I have played a few games in it and I do not get the hype nor the hate. Starting to think people here are just drama queens that make shit up for some cheap thrills.
5e is really good.
3.PF is absolute trash.
That food causes the most aggressive shits you will every have.
No, that would be Taco Bell. Bojangles is amazing, maybe you just have faggot Yankee guts?
Maybe it is just eating the shit food in Panama City and Dothan.
Hard to be a northern shit when you come from Florida's right angle.
What the fuck is up with Limit Breaking? I just don't understand FF logic, why even have a hardset damage limit if you can eventually break it anyway?
5e is probably the closest thing you'll get to a rule lite D&D game. It works, well in fact, but it suffers from the problem that it and most other games like it built off the d20 die have, in that it is hyper focused towards combat. You can see this in that fact that there are two stats used for attacks, 3 used for defense, and 2 for magic, one of which being one used by defense already. The last is used for social influence, but at 3e they also made it a magic stat, a decision that stayed to 5e. The game has a social stat that is supposed to encompass everything from attractiveness to force of personality to how well you play instruments or sing, while the mechanics for social influence are near unusable by the book by a character who doesn't specialize in it, and to the point it makes it trivial if you do.
Plus you are just useless at low level and its near impossible to do anything worth while while low level
I cannot begin to tell you how fractally wrong you are.
Honestly, I thought the decision to make Charisma combat-relevant was a good thing. Every other stat had in- and out-of-combat uses. The fact that Charisma-based saves are a thing in 5e (and for some fairly nasty spells, to boot) means that you don't want to just dump it mindlessly like in past editions.
Honestly, seeing 8s in ability scores tends to peeve me a bit when people don't play that aspect of their character as anything worse than average.