Did Wizards do a good job with 5e?

Did Wizards do a good job with 5e?
What are your thoughts on the system?

It didn't fix all my problems with 3x and 4e, but assuming no splat books for either, I'd take 5e over both of those. I'm -still- bugged that they can't get arms and armor correctly named.

With splats I'm still using 3x/Pathfinder, but only because I'm Veeky Forums's hated enemy and like weird characters.

I know Wizoids are still the master race but are fightans at least useful to lug around at higher levels?

Level advancement doesn't do nearly as much as it did in older editions. Feats are more scarce, spells don't do as much(IIRC, splats may change this) and high level PCs and Monsters aren't that much stronger than low level PCs, so the difference between an overpowered character and an underpowered one is probably like a magical item or two.

Fighters are able to hold there own especially since they have limited a lot of power in the spells. There are no metamagic stuff except for sorcerer and even those are fairly limited, feats are scarce but more potent and no needing to take 30 to get that one feat you need to make your character work.

Another bonus is limiting active spells. Each caster can only maintain one spell at a time so you can't boost yourself to god levels, you can't cast more than one spell per round, etc.

Sure, casters are more versatile and able to blast damage but martials are not unplayable by and large anymore.

Considering they threw out everything they learned from 4e and hastily cut out anything that was even remotely interesting in the playtest, that's a big, fat NO from me.

What did they cut from the play test material besides martial superiority dice?

Pros:
+Classes are far more balanced, it's almost difficult to make a useless character.
+Wizards have been toned down
+Alignments are used for almost nothing and can be easily removed from the game entirely
+Advantage/Disadvantage makes gameplay go FAR quicker than keeping track of a 2 dozen different bonuses and stat boosts
+Magic items being limited to 3 at a time via attunement helps limit power bloat
+Less feats, and the feats that do exist are far more potent. NO FEAT CHAINS!

Cons:
-Some classes are one-trick ponies, at least in combat (Rogues and sneak-attack. Warlocks and spamming Eldritch Blast.).
-Wizards are still far more versatile than other classes, despite being toned down. That isn't to say they're the best in combat, but they can still mitigate many non-combat obstacles simply by having the right spell.
-Death rules are fucking stupid. Including being able to constantly revive someone who keeps going down simply by spamming a heal spell every turn.
-Humans are still objectively better than most other races in 90% of situations
-Cross classing breaks the game in several ways (see sorcerer-warlock with meta-magic eldritch blast, or rogue paladin with sneak-attack smite).
-Sword Coast Adventures existing and the only thing people taking from it being how to build exploity characters around the "Booming Blade" spell.
-Armor still feels like it does nothing at the higher levels
-Summoning, necromancy, beastmaster rangers, and any class that uses "pets" are still obnoxious to deal with for everyone at the table except the person playing the Pokemon Trainer.

>any class that uses "pets" are still obnoxious to deal with
I've never had an issue with the pet classes (I've even played them a few times). We all just accept it's part of the class and move on from that. I understand it gives them basically 2 characters but they are easier to handle than the druid polymorphing and needing to juggle stats and shit.

All things considered, since most of the cons existed in previous versions of DnD, I'd call 5e an improvement... but it's still DnD. People can still make the argument that better systems exist for specific types of campaigns. But since DnD is what everyone plays, if you actually want to play a game 5e is pretty fun.

Fighters are still probably one of the worst, but a fighter will probably never feel useless, and unless someone is trying to, he'll be the best a raw consistent damage by far.

Also bards are the real masterrace.

Backgrounds as a third mechanically distinguishing pillar of character creation instead of a grudging concession to RP as a half-assed afterthought.
I remember there being more, but I have banished the details to the far recesses of my mind to not stay quite as upset about this mess.

>People can still make the argument that better systems exist for specific types of campaigns

I would say 5e is probably the best dungeon crawl of the series, but the skill systems make intrigue look less appealing.

>Fighters are still probably one of the worst

That's a weird way to spell Rangers, Monks, and Barbarians (at low level).

Also, in terms of "worst" class in the game... I;d probably give that to sorcerers actually. They're not really bad on their own, it's just that EVERYTHING they can do can be done better by a wizard. Metamagic feats are cool, but they don't make up for the school specialties the wizard gets or the larger spell list... and sorcerer bloodlines bonuses tend to be worse than most starting racial abilities, at least until the really high-level stuff. Even Non-prepared spellcasting kinda blows since other casters can use prepared spells multiple times now.

Sorcerer is COMPLETELY redundant and has no reason to exist other than being able to break other classes via cross-classing and using their metamagic on the OTHER CLASS's abilities.

Fighters are pretty bro. Definitely not the worst class. Proficiencies means they can even pick up non-combat skills now and not be penalized super harshly for dumping Int.

How so?

The skill system makes it easier to run skills.

It would have been nice if they could make monks a good class. Besides that I'm pretty happy with 5th, I've found it along with ad&d to be what I have the most fun with.

In what way is 5e fun?

How are games fun?

Easy to learn
Creating a character is easy
Combat and skill checks are easy
Setting up encounters as a GM is easy

Basically everything in 5e is focused around actually getting the game set up quickly and playing, instead of spending 80% of your time on numbers and stats like in previous editions, or 110% of your time on those things in... Pathfinder. *shudders*

Are games fun?

What is... fun?

the primary lesson from 4e was to not do anything even remotely resembling 4e so i'd say they learned that lesson p.well

Well, I did say one of.
But Barbarians get good.
Fighters have to do a full 20 for maximum efficiency which sucks.
A cleric can do similar damage if they do things a certain way.
I'm glad fighters don't suck skill wise, they really should have always had more points, fighter got ripped in 3.p.
>sorcerer
That's a funny way of saying Warlock, aka the dip class for CHA.

>sorcerer bloodlines bonuses
>Free mage armor
>Bad
Out of the full casters though, yeah sorcerer is trash. Metamagic isn't worth the lack of spells, spell recovery is okay, but wizard has something similar, and bards don't get a lot of cool special spell abilities, but they can take level 5 paladin spells

Easier, but less robust. I honestly think in retrospect 4e had the best opportunities for RP, and not because of skill marathons or whatever they were called but how utility powers worked. That or 3.p skill system (I forget did 4e use the same system more or less?(

F is for fire that burns down the whole town!
U is for uranium bombs!
N is for no survivors when you... something. I don't remember.

Spoken like a true zealot of Diablo edition.

They also took the worst lesson from 4e, the abysmal fluff.

Oh also forgot to say, mid level a cleric can possibly out damage the fighter.

Some of the fluff from 4e was pretty fucking rad.

Fuck you Bronnie you Fucking cow. Hope you're having fun on the back bench with the rest of your failed party you whore.

HAHA I forgot she got defeated HA.

Cool story bro?

>-Wizards are still far more versatile than other classes
More, but not far more, especially since "having the right spell" is certainly not guaranteed.

>-Humans are still objectively better than most other races in 90% of situations

Variant humans are, but standard humans are actually rather balanced or even under-powered.

>-Death rules are fucking stupid.

They could definitely be better.

>Including being able to constantly revive someone who keeps going down simply by spamming a heal spell every turn.

This is actually an improvement in my eyes, because it keeps players in the action, and it's kind of bad DMing to just keep knocking one player down.

Otherwise, I agree with your sentiments.

Way more balanced than 3.5
Less balanced than 4e
Casters are still boss

>sorlock
>broken
Does less damage than vanilla (no subclasses) fighter who doesn't spend any resource (action surge, etc), so, no.

And sorlock has to spend sorcery points or whatever. They're the casters that deal more single target damage though, but they don't outdamage most martials.

Multiclassing is shit in 99% of the cases, in the other 1% it's ok, yeah, I mean stuff like Sorlock, Palock, etc, they're ok, nothing game breaking.

>Beastmaster
>Obnoxious
Taking into account it's either the PC does action or the animal companion does action, why is this obnoxious? he doesn't get extra Actions neither drags the turn forever

I'm interested in why 5e is considered more fun than 4e or 3PF.

Maybe because some people find simple (than 4e) and more balanced (than 3.PF) fun.

>More, but not far more, especially since "having the right spell" is certainly not guaranteed.

Unless your GM is ruling that you can't swap a prepared spell or two during a short rest, it's pretty easy to get the spell you need assigned. You don't need very many of them assigned in the first place to be super versatile. Even the level 1 stuff is extremely powerful outside of direct damage-dealing.

>This is actually an improvement in my eyes, because it keeps players in the action, and it's kind of bad DMing to just keep knocking one player down.

Knocking down one player repeatedly is bad. However, going down in a fight should also be a serious thing. You shouldn;t be able to use 0hp as a "buffer" that protects you from death just because you know you can be stabilized and right back on your feet next turn with no risks or checks involved.

Sorlock is basically a sorcerer with Eldritch Blast. You can already make Eldritch Blast do insane extra damage with every ray, and push people back with every ray (of which you get multiples with every attack). Being able to add metamagic on top of that is kinda gamey.

>-Wizards are still far more versatile than other classes, despite being toned down. That isn't to say they're the best in combat, but they can still mitigate many non-combat obstacles simply by having the right spell.
Isn't this what a wizard is supposed to do though?
When I think of Gandalf I think of a wise man with contacts, knowledge and the right solution allways up his sleeve, not of a blaster-mage.

Is CR not a thing anymore? How is the GM meant to balance encounters?

Not the guy you're responding to, but it very much depends on what your source of inspiration is. If you're looking at wizards from old-school RPGs or MMOs, they're basically the class that deals AoE damage or focuses on massive buffs and debuffs. If you're looking at them from literature and such, they're closer to Gandalf.

As much as I'm going to sound like garbage for saying this, I actually prefer the videogame approach where wizards pick one thing they're good at and that's their thing, rather than being able to get good at everything. I frequently house-rule that wizards can't take spells above level 1 outside of their specialty school. It actually solves alot of the problems with Wizards feeling like they can excel at every mechanical avenue of the game that's not direct melee damage.

5e still has CR

I liked 5e overall, but I wish they've released books more frequently than one book per millenium.

>insane extra damage with every ray
42 damage at 17th level isn't insane, user

A fighter without using champion's crit, battlemaster's maneuvers, action surge, etc deals 66 at the same level. Add a crit, or maneuvers and that number rises to 100+. At 20th level a fighter can deal easily 200+

So they honestly did a pretty good job? Why does PF continue to win awards?

Fair enought I guess.

Your system is shit

It's tradition to a fault. Even Classic Fantasy (supplement to Mythras for AD&D style adventures) changes longsword from the correct type of weapon to a bastard sword and makes a bastard sword a longsword. They even explain they do this.

Too many casterfags out there

Does it though?

Nah.

'Course, it is objectively the better system.

Feywild owned bones because the fucking faerie realm is staple of fantasy and it was a goddamned crime that D&D never had it before then

5e is absolutely the best version of D&D in existence.

The game balance is very good. It is not perfect, because that would be silly and impossible. All of the classes are functional and playable, all can contribute effectively to a party. The most broken class in 5e is better-balanced than the least broken class in 3.5. Of course, people are gonna bitch and theorycraft, pointing out that one class can do 15% more DPR in certain circumstances and is therefore too powerful. But in play, with friends around a table, it's great. Fighters are the best at fighting. Rogues are the best at skills. Wizards are the best at utility spells. Advantage/disadvantage is a quick, clean mechanic that plays very well.

3.5 was actually a fucked-up system. Pathfinder is for people who got used to it and liked it, liked the system mastery that's necessary to play a game that broken. If that's your thing, enjoy. But 5e is good on its own, no acquired tastes required.

Better at what?

At caster supremacy

And retarded reasons for balance changes. Weapon cords comes to mind.

>That's a funny way of saying Warlock
Warlocks do great consistent damage once they get CHA to Eldritch Blast.

I still don't understand the weapon cords...it takes the same time to pick a weapon from ground that to pick a weapon that is dangling from a weapon cord...I don't understand why spend money on them

5th edition is terrible and the only thing it seems to have going for it based on Veeky Forums is that "it's better than 3.PF". Big deal. So is literally any system that's not D&D 4th edition.

I'm a long time 3.5 player who dropped it years back and I would much prefer literally any edition to 5. 3.x has balance and bloat issues, those can be solved by limiting to a few non broken books. 4 has issues with bloat and long combats, you can again fix it by limiting your splats, but you have way more non broken options to choose from.

5 is just watered down 3.5 core so it has all the same problems but it's more homogeneous. It seems to have ignored 4e almost entirely, missing out on what I thought was an elegant balance solution (powers). It also is basically Autistic Homebrew: the Game, which is a huge issue with 3.5. Overall fuck 5e, I really tried to like it but it offers nothing new or special enough to draw me in.

>5 is just watered down 3.5 core so it has all the same problems but it's more homogeneous.
This always amazes me. Why do people like 5e and hate 3.PF just because the other is more balanced when neither of them is good anyway?

Cause shiny new thing. Also easier to switch to a new version of the same old shit than admit the same old shit wasn't very good to begin with and face the reality that they might have to play a non-wotc system. The horror!

When it comes to pure damage dealing, Fighters are basically the best. Wizards can blow their loads in one big spell but a Fighter is going to be dealing his damage consistently, constantly, and without any interruptions throughout the day. Fighters are great for combat, but depending on how your DM lets you interact with the environment may not be so great outside of it.

Confirmed for not playing any of them

Actually a big plus for 5e is that its intended as a unifying edition, and its both broadly acceptable and not particularly difficult to play and make characters for, doesn't require a backpack full of supplements (3e/4e), doesn't require judgment calls on what to exclude (2e), and doesn't require probable houserules (OD&D/1e).

So its pretty nice.

Not that wizards need to out damage them but they can easily. Any AoE spell is basically worth 4-5 rounds of fighter at least.

While initially sceptical I am quite convinced now that it's a great game. The monsters are somewhat bland but I use a bunch of homebrew ones anyway. Combat in general needs a bit spicing-up but I think we're getting there with our party.

Two very useful things I started adding to achieve this:
1) Magical items that can be activated a limited amount of times per rest (usually one) as a bonus action or reaction (depending on the item, some also as actions). More options for the players = more better.
2) Monster abilities that can be counterplayed via movement or target priority. It's a bit MMOey, but nobody has complained yet so I guess that's not an issue.

So, in conclusion I think it's great for games that involve a lot of homebrew as mine tend to do. Out of the box it is somewhat meh unless it's as an introduction for new players.

>Rogues and sneak attack

This isn't true at all, unless you go Assassin. Arcane Trickster has tons of things it can do in combat that's not "I attack and roll dice, i'm done" thanks to their illusions and enchantments, and Thief's Fast Hands and Use Magic Items opens up many many doors and avenues for play.

I guess Swashbuckler is sort of a "I swing and end", but they're supposed to be the best at swinging and ending, so that's fine.

>Humans are objectively better than most other races

Variant Human is good for every class, but it's not the best and it's definitely not 'objectively' the best.

>Wizards are still more versatile

as is their specialty, but even bards might be a better class than Wizard.

>Cross classing breaks the game

lol.

>SCAG as a con

Booming Blade's not that big of a deal.

>Beastmaster Rangers listed as a con

they get one companion, but Druids spamming Summon Nature's Ally or Wizards with 5-6 skeletons are really annoying. Seriously though, you're going to complain about Beastmasters?

5e has CR but you balance encounters with an XP budget.

It's only that way because they only released 3 official books and only plan on making modules. This has lead to a grotesque and unbriddled use of homebrew in a game that only has a vaneer of balance. Once you start making your own splats, all bets are off. I think it would have done them well to plan at least a few extra books for more classes/races/archetypes. And again, it's just the same old shit from 3.5 in a different package. I really really tried to like 5e but holy shit it's boring and tired in 2016. They fucked up a nice working version of NEXT during the playtest to make this uninspired shit.

>unless you go Assassin
Even then, Rogue has a fair spread of non-archetype features and Assassin still gets a couple of special skills.

Yes, but they're limited by spell slots and in a single target nova fight the Fighter will win as the fight drags on and the Wizard loses his best spells. Hell, there's not even really a lot of great things to cast for damage past level 5 not named "Meteor Swarm". I guess you can Wish for a Tidal Wave or Earthquake, but Meteor is still probably more damage.

Wizard has a lot of power, but a lot of that power is out of combat shit too. The Fighter is still great at killing things, much like his name suggests. I'm not going to say there's NO power imbalance, but your martials will definitely have their place.

Confirmed for not playing anything but them

That's true, even though those skills aren't necessarily very good, since they're pretty niche and IIRC one of the backgrounds has one of the same assassin abilities but better for some reason.

But still you're right even Assassin gets some nifty shit, although it's still my least favorite Rogue path alongside Mastermind.

We will get more crunch though. Volo's guide to monsters will include playable races and eventually we will get the first major rules expansion to the game (probably next year, if I had to guess).

>It's only that way because they only released 3 official books and only plan on making modules.

Yes user... you require far fewer books to play 5e because there are far fewer books... you gt a gold star.

>And again, it's just the same old shit from 3.5 in a different package.

Kinda boggles the imagination how anyone could think them similar. Being an effective single classed fighter without having to do the equivalent of filing taxes, for example, is something 3e never got right. Not needing to multiclass like a whore further dispels similarities. Likewise, the minimal scaling by comparison removes the perception that they're alike as a DM.

I'm just not seeing it.

I dislike that character customization is almost non-existent and that rule-wise, your options in combat are very few. The feats are all boring, the classes are way too specific, weapons are meaningless and in some cases almost all characters of a certain archetype will use the one that is distinctly superior such as the rapier.

You need a level 5 spell slot to kill CR 1/2 plebs reliably, dude. Doesn't seem like a winning use of resources.

And I forgot to say anything about the magic system, it's shit too. They really need to drop vancian casting, it only makes sense in certain settings and is overly confusing and out of place.

It is good which is why it is no played by every one except evil cucks

You fucking have a spell point system if you want it

It is garbage and poorly integrated into the system. Instead I play a game where the entire magic system is built with spell points in mind.

But i heard they are fucked up somehow

3e CR is a flimsy guesstimate that you can casually abuse and that few use as intended. A monster of x CR is supposed to be a decent encounter for a whole party, but in reality a PC who can kill one such foe a round is often considered too weak to even consider worth playing.

5e CR is a harsh mistress.

>mfw a single roper (read as raper) fucked (litterally) a level ten death cleric just by grappling
>player too afraid/overconfident in their DPT to just kill the tentacles then hit the roper
>tentacled.com
knocked him down to 0 hp and I told him he woke up all sore with a single rose laid at his feet.

What CR is a roper in 5e?

6

Nice. Yeah, you definitely wanna be careful in 5e.

I think you're just being unnecessarily harsh, possibly because of some kind of bias, probably because you're not really familiar with how fluid the systems are, and largely because you're one of those guys who just repeats old complaints over and over again without really understanding them.

>tfw had a GM that limited us so fucking much we only were able to deal with CR-2 if lucky
For him power attack was "too OP"

Nobody liked casters because "lol low BAB and low HPs" or "Healbot heal heal!", I played a conjuration wizard, 4 sessions later wizard was banned in the table, repeat for Druid and Cleric. After that I just left that awful group till they changed GM or learnt how the game worked, none of which happened.

I especially like 5e monsters because every time someone makes a character and talks about how great it is you show them something with a slightly lower cr and they think "haha im sir jimmy jim james knight of the round I can fight anything I have a +1 sword and 21 ac!!"
nigger no,you aren't even pissing uphill in a stiff wind at this point you are pissing down a a wind tunnel.
>MFW his rouge got fucked by a drider casting hold person
>mfw he failed his save three rounds in a row.
>mfw to this day thinks he is powerful enough to solo it inside a monsters lair

>I think you're just being unnecessarily harsh, possibly because of some kind of bias

Wh-what? Bias for or against what? I love OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.5, 4e and 5e, but I love them for what they are.

If you think I'm being harsh about 3.5's CR, then you're mistaken, as tier 5s being not so great is not just my opinion.

Rolls will fuck you always, and monsters designed to fuck your weaknesses will always win even if you're several levels above this has been the norm in DnD since always.

Yes, but what throws people off is they see CR 10 and are reminded of how it works in 3e (ie. a level 10 PC will almost certainly obliterate it unless their defenses are shit), or say something like "level 10 monster" to themselves, making them think its in any way comparable to a level 10 PC, and then get destroyed.

Its not about bad luck or being designed to fuck your weaknesses in this case.

No he minmaxed and multiclassed in such a way that "ayy lmao NO one can cast a spell on me XDDDDDD"
also this

>a level 10 PC will almost certainly obliterate it unless their defenses are shit
SeeDepends on the game

I always try to play smart, even if I'm level 40 against a CR 1/2 kobold, because rolls will fuck you up (example my 10th level char with Fort 22 and Will 20 died against a combo of spells with DCs no higher than 15 because two nat1)and even if sold as it, DnD was never fantastic, heroic or epic, is just a grind fest of disappointment and anticlimatic PC deaths.

>Multiclassed
>In 5e
>Rogue
>He thought he was tough shit
He clearly doesn't know how the system works, I bet he sees a 13/13 for 13 in mtg and he thinks is the best thing since sliced bread

It was some rouge warlock meta prebuild bullshit with devils eyes+darknes/hold person combo

That sounds weak as fuck. Warlock is only worth shit for EB spam and as a dip for Paladin or Sorcerer, anything beyond that is shit.

>Depends on the game

Unless otherwise mentioned, its always safe to assume system related comments on RPGs refer to the RPGs, not Joe McFucktard's Happy Houserule Hour.

>DnD was never fantastic, heroic or epic, is just a grind fest of disappointment and anticlimatic PC deaths.

"Fantastic" and "heroic" do not even slightly mean "you win forever." Offhand I don't know if any of the things on the inspiration list for D&D are that.