# How many people do you know who haven't switched to 5e, and why haven't they?



## Sword of Spirit (Sep 28, 2015)

As far as I'm concerned, 5e is the best thing to happen since the d20. While I prefered the flavor of AD&D, the rules were lacking for me. I thought the rules of 3.x made more sense (and thought it was great when I first started playing it), but eventually got sick of all the crunch-bloat and complexity. Pathfinder seemed like a cool alternative version of 3.5 that was fun for a bit, but had the same basic problems. (4e felt like a different game to me, so I can't compare it effectively.) 5e to me is an amalgamation of almost the best of every D&D edition (both lore and crunch), with some innovations that improve the game. 5e requires me to make the fewest house-rules and lore repairs.

I'm trying to figure out what the primary factors are preventing people from trying out or switching over to 5e. (When I say "switching", I don't mean that you never play another edition, just that it becomes either your edition of choice, or tied for it.)

From what I see online, as well as my own experience, 5e seems to appeal most to:
1) Those who liked AD&D/pre-3e D&D
2) Those who are fans of D&D in general

The ones who seem most resistant to even giving 5e a chance seem to fall into a few categories:
1) Those who hate WotC and won't look at anything with their logo on it
2) Those who have found their edition already, and aren't really interested in anything new
3) Those who don't want to buy new books

What have your experiences been?


----------



## Oznogon (Sep 28, 2015)

Everything has strengths and weaknesses. Everything depends on everyone at the table being on board, ready to have a good time. 5e is perfect for some tables, limited for others. 3e is crunchy for some tables, perfect for others. I love running FATE more than Shadowrun, but I love how much gleeful fun my Shadowrun tables have. I love running Redemption more than FFG Star Wars, but when I don't have time to sell the setting I can still have fun with Star Wars. Every indie game I've played has impressed me on some level, and I steal ideas from them to bring back to my mainstream tables.

Who cares why people do or don't favor 5e over or equal to anything else? Who does that when there are so many awesome games of all stripes out there? 5e's just another tool in the toolbox. It's a great tool, but so's 4e, and Pathfinder, and 3e, and 2e, and 1e, and Fantasy AGE, and GURPS, and Earthdawn, and everything else.

What's my experience been? It's another game, just like all the other ones. It's fun, just like all the other ones. It's easy to run for some tables and a pain in the ass to run for others, just like all the other ones.


----------



## fjw70 (Sep 28, 2015)

For those that I know that play Pathfinder primarily it is due to the crunch. For them 5e just doesn't have enough.


----------



## GrahamWills (Sep 28, 2015)

Like a lot of people in my area, we didn't find 5e bad, just ... there didn't seem to be any reason to choose it over several other choices. A lot of us had tried out 13th Age, and the use of backgrounds instead of skills, the way each class felt completely different, the better balance between magic-users / fighters, especially in terms of the options available, the One Unique Thing, the one reference book instead of three, and the overall fun of it really won us over.

When we tried 5e, it was like "hmmm. yeah. they got rid of some problems and made stuff simpler. What was new and exciting?" and there was a long pause. It's hard to look at it and say "this is cool". So we went off to play stuff that was cool.


----------



## GrahamWills (Sep 28, 2015)

Forgot to answer the original question. Of the maybe 50-60 people in my area who I played any form of D&D with, I don't think any of them are playing much 5e. The local cons are all PF, with a few 5e thrown in, but nearly all intro stuff.


----------



## phil62 (Sep 28, 2015)

I'm in your third category.  They are expensive and represent a new investment.
(This isn't a dig at WotC's pricing -- most similar hardback volumes are similarly pricey.)


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Sep 28, 2015)

My group and I haven't changed to 5e and probably won't in the foreseeable future.

I run a 4e campaign which will end sometime next year. A friend will continue her 4e campaign after that. So it may be two or three years until I start a new camapign and select an edition or different game system.

Would I have to decide today and rule out non-D&D games, I'd select 2e with a healthy dose ouf house rules. 10 years of experience make it easy to run and judge for me. I have yet to find a compelling argument to buy the 5e books and run it instead.


----------



## J. L. Duncan (Sep 28, 2015)

The gamers I played (back in the day to current) with have stuck to OD&D-2nd Edition, OSR or HackMaster. Surprisingly not even one that I know of has converted to 5E or ever even played DW, Savage or Pathfinder... 

We switched to "other games" at D&D 3rd Edition. Though in general this was a drop from all old school fantasy, playing Palladium Books RPGs and a number of smaller publishers...

I have recently read through and kept up on the newer itineration's of D&D and I have to say that 5th is looking pretty appealing. Based on your guess its pretty accurate for me.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 28, 2015)

I think some of my 4e group really likes 4e, in particular the combat, and they may not wish to switch when the campaign ends in a bit under a year (most likely), going from 30th level 4e PCs to 1st level 5e PCs will be quite a jump. I think they like the crunchy tactical combat and the cinematic elements, which are a bit cursory in 5e.


----------



## delericho (Sep 28, 2015)

I know of three ongoing Pathfinder campaigns (though they overlap heavily - and two have the same GM).

In the case of the two campaigns with the same DM, the mechanical weight of the system is considered a plus - he just likes the huge range of available options.

In the case of the other campaign, it's because they're playing "Rise of the Runelords", and the (newbie) DM didn't want to bother with a conversion.

Besides, nobody in our group has much experience with 5e yet, while many people have years of experience with PF. So the net gain of switching is smaller than might otherwise be the case.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 28, 2015)

Honestly, because I publish 3PP content for Pathfinder, and because I am quite content with the amount of crunch and player options with PF, even a slightly lighter rule system feels like features are missing. Because of 5e's lack of supplements, and because its a turn away from PF/3x, as well as being another iteration of D&D after such a short time since 3x (at least to me) - I am not ready to look at 5e. Also note, I'm usually not a person that needs to be the first in line to any trend or product, whether its a game system, computer operating system, latest cell phone technology, etc. I often wait a couple years before moving on to the next thing (whatever that thing is...). I am in no way compelled to look at 5e, not for a long time, anyway.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 28, 2015)

My Saturday group switched to 5E about 18 months ago.  The other group didn't want to, so it's a Pathfinder group these days.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 28, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> From what I see online, as well as my own experience, 5e seems to appeal most to:
> 1) Those who liked AD&D/pre-3e D&D
> 2) Those who are fans of D&D in general




haven't really paid attention to 5e so can't say much about this.



> The ones who seem most resistant to even giving 5e a chance seem to fall into a few categories:
> 1) Those who hate WotC and won't look at anything with their logo on it
> 2) Those who have found their edition already, and aren't really interested in anything new
> 3) Those who don't want to buy new books
> ...




of the several hundred gamers I know or have gamed with personally. most fall into 2 and 3. not so many category 1. so category 2 is definitely the strongest by leaps and bounds.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 28, 2015)

I don't know a lot of the local groups the way I did in smaller towns when I was younger and most groups had some connection to the high schools, but I don't know of any group that has switched to 5e.  

I walk into the local gaming stores and all I see is 3.X games going on.


----------



## UnknownAtThisTime (Sep 28, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> From what I see online, as well as my own experience, 5e seems to appeal most to:
> 1) Those who liked AD&D/pre-3e D&D
> 2) Those who are fans of D&D in general
> 
> ...




We *like* 4e.  
We have virtually all the 4e material.  
We have limited time to invest in learning the new rules (allthough we did make a run at what I believe was the very first play test material) and determined we would keep status quo when the decision whether to move came up.

So clearly there is no WotC hate, although it is also not fair to say we are "resistant" simply because we are still playing 4e.  It is just not the right game for the group right now.

FWIW, half the group has only played 4e, the other half has played AD&D and Basic, so origin of experience is not really a factor for us.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 28, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> The ones who seem most resistant to even giving 5e a chance seem to fall into a few categories:
> 1) Those who hate WotC and won't look at anything with their logo on it
> 2) Those who have found their edition already, and aren't really interested in anything new
> 3) Those who don't want to buy new books
> ...




I'm a category #2 guy. I bought a 5E PHB a year ago, but I still have yet to crack the cover of it. I did read through the "Basic 5E" PDF that came out a few months before the full game's debut, and it honestly struck me as Third Edition with some caps on the bonuses and a few tweaks to some other rules. That impression left me cold, not because I dislike Third Edition, but because - after finding a supplement that let me build characters for it via point-buy rather than class levels, while not having to otherwise change the underlying game rules - I honestly don't see any need to go back.

I like D&D as a game, but I've come to the determination that class-level progression carries an inherent element of restriction of choice, insofar as what sort of characters you can make. That's perfectly fine, since there are a lot of games (such as earlier editions of D&D) that can use that as a strength, rather than (its common perception as being) a weakness. But 3.X/Pathfinder isn't such a game; it wants to offer (near-)total freedom of character-design, hence the unending treadmill of new classes, feats, archetypes, PrC's, etc., but it's never going to get there that way. Having something that breaks that particular paradigm wide open gives me everything I want.


----------



## Aenghus (Sep 28, 2015)

I'm still playing 4e and don't think I will pick up any of the 5e books at this point. I probably fit into the OP's category 2, in that 4e suits my needs very well, in that I like long campaigns, low PC turnover and high level play, which 4e the way I run it does well with less work than other D&D editions.

I played some of the 5e playtest and didn't like the old school swinginess of the system, simpler PCs, and higher DM workload, and didn't buy into the nostalgia.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 29, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> The ones who seem most resistant to even giving 5e a chance seem to fall into a few categories:
> 1) Those who hate WotC and won't look at anything with their logo on it
> 2) Those who have found their edition already, and aren't really interested in anything new
> 3) Those who don't want to buy new books
> ...




I didn't respond to this in my previous post...

1) I don't hate WotC, they are just another publisher, a big one, but no more or less important (to me) than any other RPG game publisher. I am not specifically motivated in seeing their logo - its just another logo...
2) I am happy with my edition (PF), but as a 3PP designer/developer, it a practical matter, I play the edition, that I create for, preference or interest doesn't necessarily apply.
3) This one certainly, I don't even want to buy new Pathfinder books. I still do though, every now and again, however I spend a lot more on PF 3PP than I do for Paizo Publishing. I don't play 5e, and don't know anyone, locally, who does, so why spend money unnecessarily - I'm not particularly wealthy.


----------



## Manbearcat (Sep 29, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> I'm trying to figure out what the primary factors are preventing people from trying out or switching over to 5e. (When I say "switching", I don't mean that you never play another edition, just that it becomes either your edition of choice, or tied for it.)
> 
> From what I see online, as well as my own experience, 5e seems to appeal most to:
> 1) Those who liked AD&D/pre-3e D&D
> ...




I agree with your first surmise (and pointed it out as the playtest was nearing its twilight iterations...and got chastised for it by certain parties for edition warring...somehow).

Personally, whereas once I knew maybe 100ish gamers in real life, now I know only perhaps 15.  Of those 15, only 1 is playing (GMing) 5e.  He was running AD&D prior and now his group (I don't know any of them so they aren't among the 15) is playing 5e.  He is enjoying himself and presumably his group is doing the same.  Outside of that fellow, the other folks of that 15 are pretty close to my own bent:

1)  They carry no feelings of enmity, love, or other for WotC.

2)  They own lots and lots of RPGs so the buying of books isn't a relevant factor (your 3 above).

3)  They prefer a system over 5e to sate their heroic/romantic fantasy inclinations.  Further, if they want to run a dungeon crawl, Basic, house-ruled AD&D, something OSR, or Torchbearer hits the spot.


----------



## TheFindus (Sep 29, 2015)

I do not know anybody who plays 5e. I play 4E in one group and 13th Age in another.

The people with whom I play 4E like highly tactical fights and the streamlined nature of this system. It is also very fluffable. Some of them took a look at 5e but got the feeling of "been there, done that". They have been playing since the 80s and 5e seems to remind them of the old D&D systems. So there is nothing to be really exited about, you know. I also think they felt that the focus on "ask your DM first" was a turnoff, I guess.

Most of the people with whom I play 13th Age like the easy-going nature of the ruleset that is very honest about putting a lot of power in the hands of the players. From a very recent discussion they also really like all of the basic mechanics of the game (backgrounds, icons, OUT, the setup of most classes etc.). They, coming from a 3.5 background, like the fact that the system is much less tactical. One of the people I play 13th Age with does not like the system very much (and would rather play 3.5 again I guess) but enjoys playing with the others.

There is no hate for WotC. Why would there be anyways? It seems to me that we are just not the target group for the new edition. The subject never comes up in real life, really. Only in the forums.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 29, 2015)

I haven't "switched over" because I don't have an edition of choice.  Or even an overall game of choice.

If someone I know who is a decent GM is running something with a decent group of folks, I am probably willing to play.  System is not a primary concern.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 30, 2015)

Number 2 for me. (I'm playing and running 4e.)

DMs have the vote in this one though. If your DM likes 5e but the players like 3e, you're going to have a 5e game, because DMing is often a lot of work.


----------



## Orius (Sep 30, 2015)

It's # 2 & 3 for me.  5e is quite a bit like 3e, but without the flexibility I like, and with a few unfamiliar elements.  Plus at $50 a pop, those books are a bit pricey (yeah, I know printing costs and so on, but it's a big investment for new players).  The basic rules PDF though is excellent, and there's a few things from that I'll backport into my games.  I will say though that the art is better than it's been since the classic days of AD&D and BECMI.  The DMG is the best I've ever seen, it's better than the 2e and 3e DMGs, and it does the best job of teaching new players how to actually run a game of all the DMGs I've seen.  So while I don't want to run the game, I'll play it if that's what the DM is doing.


----------



## Raith5 (Sep 30, 2015)

S'mon said:


> I think some of my 4e group really likes 4e, in particular the combat, and they may not wish to switch when the campaign ends in a bit under a year (most likely), going from 30th level 4e PCs to 1st level 5e PCs will be quite a jump. I think they like the crunchy tactical combat and the cinematic elements, which are a bit cursory in 5e.




I play with two groups. The experienced group likes 4e for the reasons noted above, especially its depth and complexity. 5e is not remotely part of the gaming conversation. But I also play with a group of people new to RPGS or who played a bit in the 80s and they really like 5e. So I think tactical depth is a key factor for gaming attitudes to 5e.

I think 5e is a good entry level experience but there would have to be a far greater range of options (or modules!) to attract some of the experienced players I know.


----------



## Bluenose (Sep 30, 2015)

My group and two of the three groups I know of don't have a "Game of Choice". They play whatever most suits the type of game they want to run. Sometimes that's Fate, sometimes it's GURPS, sometimes it's Traveller or Dragon Age or Runequest or Heroquest or.... you should get the idea by now. The other play White Wolf games, keep talking about trying something else but then someone comes up with a clever idea for a game that would only work in <Demon/Werewolf/Mage/Changeling/Exalted). As far as I'm aware none of the former, multi-game groups have played 5e except in the playtest and the latter possibly haven't even realised it exists.


----------



## Balesir (Sep 30, 2015)

None of the dozen or so gamers I know well have "switched" to 5e, in as much as no-one I know has run, is running or intends to run a campaign. We tried the odd try-out, but really don't see much in it to positively attract us. For me and most of the players I know, it's a case of having plenty of other systems that offer more. If I run D&D type games it will be 4E or 13th Age for the forseeable future. If someone offered to run 5e I'd be happy to play, but at present that's not really a proposition that's on the horizon.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Oct 2, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> 5e to me is an amalgamation of almost the best of every D&D edition (both lore and crunch), with some innovations that improve the game. 5e requires me to make the fewest house-rules and lore repairs.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out what the primary factors are preventing people from trying out or switching over to 5e. (When I say "switching", I don't mean that you never play another edition, just that it becomes either your edition of choice, or tied for it.)



Early D&D was a Grand Strategy-style wargame, except designed as a cooperative game. Like all the computer RPG copies you try and "beat" the game, or really, get as much XP and treasure as you can generally. This is done by _gaming_ the game world. D&D was a game designed like any other game, but had so many rules behind all that world behavior it warranted publishing them in hardback. I don't think any game in history did that before. 

5e is a storygame where the DM is a player and is expected to improvise. Players aren't treating the game situation like a game, but rather as a shared narrative. These aren't just different ways to play, they are not playing a game as a game. And the subsequent design carries these assumptions through.  However, to its credit 5e doesn't require a specific playstyle and could be jury-rigged into a functional Grand Strategy-style game - making it old school. It also simplifies many progression issues and leveling expectations baked in 3e and 4e. Advancement benefits that became more visibly problematic as the games aged.

I think most of the reason people don't switch to a new edition is less about sticking with what they know than the absence in the new game for things they already have. I'm not looking for the 4e experience, but I can respect its tight skirmish combat game with its rewarding high player difficulty. That's not quite so much in 5e, so even relative newcomers can hold back from switching.


----------



## DMJon (Oct 3, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> I'm trying to figure out what the primary factors are preventing people from trying out or switching over to 5e. (When I say "switching", I don't mean that you never play another edition, just that it becomes either your edition of choice, or tied for it.)
> 
> From what I see online, as well as my own experience, 5e seems to appeal most to:
> 1) Those who liked AD&D/pre-3e D&D
> ...




I probably fall best into category 2.  I stated playing with the Holmes box set back in the late 70’s and moved on to AD&D shortly thereafter.  By the time 2E came around I had unfortunately lost much of my interest in D&D.  However, In 2008 I stumbled upon the Penny Arcade podcasts which sucked me back in and I’ve been playing 4E ever since.   For me, 4E was the perfect version of the game. I recall reading through the 4E Player’s Handbook and thinking to myself “This is the D&D I’ve always wanted!”  

When 5E was announced I was a little disappointed because I didn’t want to see support for 4E stop.  I followed the development of 5E from a distance and when it was finally released I purchased all of the books.  I’ve read through most of the Player’s Handbook and found that the system doesn’t resonate with me like 4E does.  5E is an interesting game but whenever I find myself getting a little excited about it, I’ll read a rule or a concept that I don’t like or agree with. This is frustrating because I want to like the edition but it just won’t let me! 

I’ve loved every version of D&D I’ve played and I’m sure I would have enjoyed 3E/3.5 had I been playing when they were released.  To be honest, I know I’d have fun playing 5E if it was the version my friends wanted to play but as it stands 4E is still our game of choice.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Oct 4, 2015)

Or there is option 4) None of the above.

Neither hate or love WotC.
I bought the 5E books.
And I play in multiple editions and games.

Mainly we don't play it cause no one really wants to learn another set of rules.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Oct 4, 2015)

Thanks everyone, that's quite helpful.

It looks like another category that has come up in the discussion is:
4) They aren't ready (haven't finished a current campaign, waiting for the system to mature)

Also:
5) The've moved on from D&D

I didn't really focus on 5, because that's a whole different thing. I personally love trying and playing a variety of non-D&D games. I'm mainly thinking from the perspective of "what do you play when you play D&D?" I'm counting Pathfinder and retroclones in that mix, but not much else. (I don't know much about 13th Age, but the impression that I get is that it doesn't easily fit into the D&D family of games.)

Number 4 is an interesting one, because it's something that should change in the next couple of years. In that time, most of those who aren't looking into 5e will have finished up with what they have going on. They may or may not go for 5e, but at least 4 will mostly be off the table.

I'd say the love of the greater granularity/crunchiness/tactical possibilities/character options of 3e or 4e is probably halfway between #2 and it's own category. 

It's interesting to see what people's reasons are. Personally, I think #2 is a really good reason, #4 is perfectly reasonable, #1 is silly, and #3 is an excuse more than a reason. There aren't many 5e books; almost all the non-crunch material in prior editions is compatible; and 5e is very easy to house rule if you want to convert a feat, spell, magic item, etc. Monsters are the one thing I'm really hoping we'll get official updates on.  (Ie, if someone doesn't like it, they don't like it, and there isn't really a need for an excuse--though reasons can be informative.)

I was making predictions of the game's popularity during the playtest, so part of the reason for this thread was to see how close I was.

Strangely, I must admit that I'm not yet sure how accurate my predictions were. The sales numbers are extremely good, and still going strong a year later--which is important. But it seems like most people online don't know many people in person who play 5e. My in-person experience is also similar. I was invited to play in a Starter Set game with some people, but other than that I'm pretty much the 5e guy around. When people are playing it it is because I'm DMing it--although they all seem to have enjoyed it and no one has asked me to run a different edition instead.

So it makes me wonder how the demographics are breaking down. I correctly guessed that fans of D&D in general would adopt it, as well as going over well with pre-3e fans. But I had also expected a lot of non-diehard 3.5e/Pathfinder players to adopt it (perhaps "adopt" is a better term than "switch to"). The anecdotes don't appear to be supporting that prediction. It might be reason #4 that is holding that group back. I think what howandwhy99 said about not wanting to lose particular things one has is a bigger deal with the 3e-4e crowd than the older edition fans, and that may also play into it. One thought that occurs to me is that perhaps there is a lot higher percentage of die-hards in the 3e/Pathfinder fan-base than I had expected.

Again, thanks for the participation, and feel free to continue sharing thoughts.


----------



## sunshadow21 (Oct 4, 2015)

I know for me at least, the reason I haven't done anything with 5E is pretty simple. If I were a new player just getting into the hobby, it would be a strong competitor for what I started with; it's a good solid game that is easy to learn and build from. But for myself, and I suspect most people already in the hobby, it doesn't have anything particularly special or unique to really make it stand out. There are a few bits that are interesting to players of other systems, but most of them are easily ported into, or are already part of the systems being played currently. 

In the end, I have to say that if the goal was to simply put a system out there that would keep the D&D name active and present with basically no followup support, they succeeded; 5E definitely stopped the bleeding and the damage caused during the 4E era. It also does a very good job of being a solid second or third choice for most groups for those times that the first choice can't be used or those groups that commonly rotate between systems. It also appeals to enough of the DM centric groups to have a solid base of support from there, giving the edition reasonably solid ground to potentially build from.

If the goal was anything more than that, they didn't succeed. It's not an edition that's going to win back the majority of the lost 3E or 4E crowd, as that crowd is generally looking for something a bit more crunchy and a bit less DM centered. Also, the parts that make DMing easier are centered on individual encounters, not campaign long concerns, where DMs have just as much work in 5E as they would in any other edition; thus, a lot of the aspects that seem to make DMing the system easier still get muted over time, especially for new DMs that have never run a campaign before, just like every other version of D&D out there. While it will get the attention of the pre-3rd crowd, it's not likely to automatically replace the sheer number of options already available to them. Far more likely with the latter crowd is that 5E material will get incorporated into the existing house rules, and most won't be all that concerned about playing 5E solely. And in the end, while I don't think anybody wanted the flood of new material seen in earlier editions, the lack of new material will end up being just as much of a problem in this edition. 2 APs and a few other random products here and there does not particularly scream industry leader, and to a certain extent, the hype is going eventually die down to match the supporting material.

In the end, for me, it's not the system is bad, but rather that it's also not particularly great or new. It does well what it was designed to do well, and, for better and for worse, that's pretty much it. Given all the other options out there, that's simply not going to be enough to really get the attention of those already in the hobby that want something else from their gaming time. Unless the video games and/or movies and/or whatever else they try to make to bolster the brand outside the rpg system really, really comes through, which isn't very likely given the lackluster reviews of the new video game that I have been reading and the really, really lackluster success of past movies, I don't see a lot of growth happening, and eventually D&D will be replaced by other systems that are more actively supported in the top position. It's role as a good general system will always keep it near the top, but other systems are already surpassing it as far as confirmed long term player support is concerned.


----------



## Imperialus (Oct 4, 2015)

I don't actually know anyone who is playing 5th ed.  It's actually the first edition of D&D that I have bought nothing for.

My longest running group plays a B/X, AD&D, BECMI mashup strung together with twine and sticky tape in the form of Labyrinth Lord.  The campaign has been going on for 7 years now, it works for us, and we have no desire to change.

The kid I know who plays 3.5 plays 3.5 because he has a bajillion splatbooks for it and doesn't want to buy more.

My friend from work plays Pathfinder because it's a cleaned up version of 3.5.


----------



## TheFindus (Oct 4, 2015)

sunshadow21 said:


> In the end, I have to say that if the goal was to simply put a system out there that would keep the D&D name active and present with basically no followup support, they succeeded; 5E definitely stopped the bleeding and the damage caused during the 4E era. It also does a very good job of being a solid second or third choice for most groups for those times that the first choice can't be used or those groups that commonly rotate between systems. It also appeals to enough of the DM centric groups to have a solid base of support from there, giving the edition reasonably solid ground to potentially build from.
> 
> If the goal was anything more than that, they didn't succeed. It's not an edition that's going to win back the majority of the lost 3E or 4E crowd, as that crowd is generally looking for something a bit more crunchy and a bit less DM centered. Also, the parts that make DMing easier are centered on individual encounters, not campaign long concerns, where DMs have just as much work in 5E as they would in any other edition; thus, a lot of the aspects that seem to make DMing the system easier still get muted over time, especially for new DMs that have never run a campaign before, just like every other version of D&D out there. While it will get the attention of the pre-3rd crowd, it's not likely to automatically replace the sheer number of options already available to them. Far more likely with the latter crowd is that 5E material will get incorporated into the existing house rules, and most won't be all that concerned about playing 5E solely. And in the end, while I don't think anybody wanted the flood of new material seen in earlier editions, the lack of new material will end up being just as much of a problem in this edition. 2 APs and a few other random products here and there does not particularly scream industry leader, and to a certain extent, the hype is going eventually die down to match the supporting material.



I agree with you that the new edition stopped "the bleeding" that was caused by the fact that many people just did not like 4E. And I say this as somebody who really really likes 4E. 
On the other hand: what makes you so sure they can or have won back lots of 3e, 4E or Pathfinder players? I do not know the numbers but looking at the available sales statistics it seems that 5e is a great success regardless of the fact that "only" 2 APs are being published every year and by third party publishers. I do not play 5e and probably never will, but just 2 APs a year seems much better than the flood of books in the 3e-era that was a mess (Book of Erotic something just to call out one of the worst offenders). And I guess they were able to win back some of the players who kept playing AD&D and earlier editions since 5e is clearly aimed at that target group. I remember the first playtest package and how I thought that it was so old-fashioned until I realized that they wanted to get the attention of the AD&D players. This edition was not really meant for me.
Now, I play 4E and 13th Age. And while I think 5e does nothing to bring more players to play 4E, since most will simply play the latest edition, I am convinced that some of those who play 5e will start playing 13th Age eventually because of all the unique mechanics and fluffability. And that is good for the game I like. So I think 5e should succeed. And I think it is and will in the long run. It does not look like wishful thinking.


----------



## sunshadow21 (Oct 4, 2015)

TheFindus said:


> I agree with you that the new edition stopped "the bleeding" that was caused by the fact that many people just did not like 4E. And I say this as somebody who really really likes 4E.
> On the other hand: what makes you so sure they can or have won back lots of 3e, 4E or Pathfinder players? I do not know the numbers but looking at the available sales statistics it seems that 5e is a great success regardless of the fact that "only" 2 APs are being published every year and by third party publishers. I do not play 5e and probably never will, but just 2 APs a year seems much better than the flood of books in the 3e-era that was a mess (Book of Erotic something just to call out one of the worst offenders). And I guess they were able to win back some of the players who kept playing AD&D and earlier editions since 5e is clearly aimed at that target group. I remember the first playtest package and how I thought that it was so old-fashioned until I realized that they wanted to get the attention of the AD&D players. This edition was not really meant for me.
> Now, I play 4E and 13th Age. And while I think 5e does nothing to bring more players to play 4E, since most will simply play the latest edition, I am convinced that some of those who play 5e will start playing 13th Age eventually because of all the unique mechanics and fluffability. And that is good for the game I like. So I think 5e should succeed. And I think it is and will in the long run. It does not look like wishful thinking.




I never said it hadn't succeeded; I just said that expecting much more success than what it currently has is unrealistic without major changes in the product schedule or major help from an outside source. It has already been far more successful than most expected; even people at WotC don't seem to have expected the level of success it has achieved. That said, growth going forward is going to be difficult, and sustaining what they currently have is likely to be a notable effort. They've pretty much gotten the people they are going to get from earlier editions, Pathfinder, and other game systems. Every single AP is going to have to be really, really, really good and have a fairly wide appeal to make up for the lack of other products. While many prefer the only 2 APs a year to the flood, it does create pressure on each individual product that a schedule that fell in between their current one and the one used by previous editions would do a lot to alleviate. Something akin to the OGL would take a lot of that pressure off, but there's no evidence that we are likely to see that anytime soon. A wildly successful movie or video game might help, but early reviews for SGL are not making that seem like an immediate source of relief. In short, I see no reason to expect 5E to drop off any time soon, but I also don't see a lot of room for growth given the small size of the dev team, and other systems will eventually catch up to it. Pathfinder already has in many regards, and there are others that have the potential if those making them keep up their current levels of success. In this case, 5E falling from the top is less about 5E failing and more about everyone else catching up and using the momentum to move past. Because for all that it is a solid system and foundation to keep printing books for some time, 5E, with it's current team and product schedule, does not have internal momentum; any future growth is going to rely almost entirely on the success of the other ventures using the same brand. As long as this is what the company was looking for, it was a success; if they were looking for something more, it's going to be a major disappointment in the long run.


----------



## was (Oct 5, 2015)

Too wrapped up in existing PF campaigns.


----------



## Nibelung (Oct 5, 2015)

Number 3 for me, with a caveat: It is not that I don't want to buy new books. It is that I don't want to buy new _physical_ books. I ran out of space on my shelves, and I'm seriously tired of selling stuff I stopped playing (I don't like to keep stuff there gathering dust. Books were made to be read). 

So, now I only buy books in digital format. And since you can't buy any of the 5e stuff in digital version, I keep playing 4e. I really, really, REALLY, like 4e as a system (but I don't like how it handle skills), but I DM for long enough to know that finding new players is easier with the current edition of D&D than any previous edition, no matter how "complete" they are (pick ANY finished D&D edition: You can play for decades with all material released). 

And since I just started my first campaign I intend to go all the way to level 30, even if WotC release 5e pdfs soon, I might keep playing 4e until this campaign is finished.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 5, 2015)

Me and my group still play 3.5, because we have so many 3rd edition books. Plus, the open gaming license just opens up so many possibilities. If we want to play Call of Cthulhu, D20 Modern, D20 Past, or do some Pathfinder, we don't have to learn any new rules. I can buy Pathfinder books just to expand my 3.5 material. The open gaming license was a great idea, and its a pity that Wizards stepped away from that.

That being said, I have read the 5th edition rules, and I like them. But I don't like them enough to switch.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Oct 5, 2015)

I can only speak to my own experiences.  I remain happy with BECMI and the Rules Cyclopedia.  I've so fully internalized these rules that using them is like speaking English or riding a bicycle.

Learning to play 5e would be like learning Dutch.  Easier than 3e was (about like learning Latin or French), much easier than 4e would be (might as well be Mandarin Chinese), but still foreign.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 5, 2015)

Jack Daniel said:


> Learning to play 5e would be like learning Dutch.  Easier than 3e was (about like learning Latin or French), much easier than 4e would be (might as well be Mandarin Chinese), but still foreign.




The Dutch word for roleplaying game, is rollen spel.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 5, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> How many people do you know who haven't switched to 5e, and why haven't they?



Quite a few, unfortunately.  Two out of the 4-6 tables we've had at our FLGS on Wed nights for a long time, for instance, they both turned into ongoing campaigns between editions, and just haven't run their course, two more tables on the weekend.  A comparable number of PF players, what I hear from them is that 5e is fine, nothing about it makes them want to burn Mike Mearls in effigy or anything, but nothing much makes them want to play it instead of Pathfinder, either.  

I do suspect that most 4e players will come around as their ongoing campaigns finish, and they notice there hasn't been a book out in 3 years and finally find something new/shiny in 5e and go 'oh, this looks cool...'  :shrug:

PF fans, though, as long as Piazo keeps making stuff, maybe rolls out a PF 2.0, why would they?



> From what I see online, as well as my own experience, 5e seems to appeal most to:
> 1) Those who liked AD&D/pre-3e D&D
> 2) Those who are fans of D&D in general



That matches my experience.  Most of the new players I've had who have stuck with 5e had previously played 2e, or even were playing for the first time, but had been exposed to the game back in the 80s.  AD&D, when you think about it (1e & 2e were /very/ similar), had a run from 1977 to 1999, it's the most definitive version of D&D, and the one 5e most tries to evoke the feel (if, blessedly, not all the mechanics) of, and the one version most past players have the most experience with.  

I, OTOH, have been with the game since 1980 and played & enjoyed every edition, though so am in group (2) - at least, as a DM.



> The ones who seem most resistant to even giving 5e a chance seem to fall into a few categories:
> 1) Those who hate WotC and won't look at anything with their logo on it
> 2) Those who have found their edition already, and aren't really interested in anything new
> 3) Those who don't want to buy new books



I haven't heard the last complaint much (I've heard price complaints from people who /have/ switched, and a lot of them buy the books from Amazon as a result), but aside from that, yes, those seem fairly straightforward reasons.  I'd expand on (2) a little to say that 5e either doesn't give them enough of what 'their edition' does, or does something 'wrong' from that PoV.  A 3.5 fan might find 5e limited with too few choices & no respect for RAW, a 4e fan might find it lacking specific options & 'broken' with imbalanced classes, encounters, & magic items.


----------



## innerdude (Oct 6, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Thanks everyone, that's quite helpful.
> 
> It looks like another category that has come up in the discussion is:
> 4) They aren't ready (haven't finished a current campaign, waiting for the system to mature)
> ...




Well, I don't know if it's a "totally different thing," but it's exactly where I am right now. I'm just completely off the D&D bandwagon in any form. That said, if I were to choose a preferred "version" of D&D to play or GM, it would probably be either 5e or Fantasy Craft . . . . but the actual D&D game itself is probably somewhere around 8th or 9th down the list of games I'd prefer playing or GM-ing.

The games in front of any variety of D&D for me: 


Savage Worlds
The One Ring
Night's Black Agents
Fate Core
Burning Wheel
Firefly
Star Wars Force and Destiny
Runequest
Star Wars d6

And even then, I'm pretty sure if I was going to try a d20/D&D variant at all, it would pretty much be a tossup if I wanted to go with Fantasy Craft first or 5e. I think 5e might have a slight lead, but still...... That's like trying to decide between your 9th and 10th favorite ice cream flavors. Once you're past #6, does it really make any difference? 



Sword of Spirit said:


> Number 4 is an interesting one, because it's something that should change in the next couple of years. In that time, most of those who aren't looking into 5e will have finished up with what they have going on. They may or may not go for 5e, but at least 4 will mostly be off the table.
> I'd say the love of the greater granularity/crunchiness/tactical possibilities/character options of 3e or 4e is probably halfway between #2 and it's own category.
> 
> So it makes me wonder how the demographics are breaking down. I correctly guessed that fans of D&D in general would adopt it, as well as going over well with pre-3e fans. But I had also expected a lot of non-diehard 3.5e/Pathfinder players to adopt it (perhaps "adopt" is a better term than "switch to"). The anecdotes don't appear to be supporting that prediction. It might be reason #4 that is holding that group back. I think what howandwhy99 said about not wanting to lose particular things one has is a bigger deal with the 3e-4e crowd than the older edition fans, and that may also play into it. One thought that occurs to me is that perhaps there is a lot higher percentage of die-hards in the 3e/Pathfinder fan-base than I had expected.
> ...




Not surprising to me at all, considering that Paizo has consistently gathered good will from its customers over the past 5-6 years, and WotC has not, up until the 5e release. Plus, clearly 5e and Pathfinder are serving very different audiences, those who prefer heavy crunch versus those who don't.


----------



## gentle_songbird (Oct 6, 2015)

My group plays 4e. I like the way the combat works. I have a couple of players that prefer the almost board game type feel of 4e. 3e was just too complex for them. I agree that 4e does play different than the other editions, but I personally don't mind the change. Not sure if we may consider 5e when are campaign is done, but that means investing in new books and such that I can't do right now.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 6, 2015)

gentle_songbird said:


> I have a couple of players that prefer the almost board game type feel of 4e. 3e was just too complex for them.




See, I originally played 2nd edition. So when I switched from 2nd to 3rd, I actually thought it simplified things a lot. This was originally what held us back as well. We were afraid that 3rd edition got rid of too many of the details in 2nd edition. But it didn't take long for me to realize just how little I missed all of those countless saves (rod/staff/wand) and the confusing Thac0 and reverse armor class system.

To me, 3rd edition was the first system that made sense. And 5th edition, from what I've seen of it, does not stray too far from 3rd edition. They simplified some of the things, such as advantage/disadvantage, and inspiration, which are welcome changes. But they've also over complicated things, by again going back to more saves, where as the three saves in 3rd edition worked just fine. Seriously, do we need a charisma save and an intelligence save? I think I'll stick with the reflex, constitution and willpower save. Those seem to cover everything just fine. Some of the combat seems better balanced in 5th edition. Armor class, hit points and attack power don't seem to get quite as much out of hand as they do in 3rd edition at higher levels.

So I definitely see the positives and the negatives of 5th edition. But I just have so many books for 3rd edition and Pathfinder... I like not having to be confined to just WotC books. The more publishers the better.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2015)

innerdude said:


> Paizo has consistently gathered good will from its customers over the past 5-6 years, and WotC has not, up until the 5e release.



I think you have to be careful with this sort of claim.

I was a customer of WotC during the 4e era, and WotC consistently gathered good will from me, in the sense that it published useful stuff for the game at wanted to play, and sold it to me at reasonable prices. I get the sense that many 4e players had a similar view.

I think by "customers" of WotC you mean _potential_ customers, or perhaps _D&D players_. WotC is very different in this respect from Paizo: no one would think of _me_ as a "customer" of Paizo, because I've played very little 3E and no 3.5 or PF (I have 3E books on my shelf, but for adaptation to other systems) - even though I'm a 30+ year RPGer who still tries to get a game in every fortnight to three weeks. Whereas plenty of people who weren't playing 4e, or aren't playing 5e, still get labelled "customers" of WotC.

Of course, the _benefit_ of this to WotC is revealed when they start selling a product which those potential customers are interested in buying - they leap almost effortlessly to the front of the RPG market pack.



innerdude said:


> The games in front of any variety of D&D for me:
> 
> 5.  Burning Wheel​



Have you been playing any BW? My campaign is about 8 or 9 sessions in.


----------



## Bluenose (Oct 6, 2015)

innerdude said:


> Well, I don't know if it's a "totally different thing," but it's exactly where I am right now. I'm just completely off the D&D bandwagon in any form. That said, if I were to choose a preferred "version" of D&D to play or GM, it would probably be either 5e or Fantasy Craft . . . . but the actual D&D game itself is probably somewhere around 8th or 9th down the list of games I'd prefer playing or GM-ing.
> 
> The games in front of any variety of D&D for me:
> 
> ...




Kill the heretic, that knows not Pendragon nor plays it. 

Rest of the list is good, differing from what I like mostly in order rather than content, but if you've any liking for King Arthur/the Matter of Britain/medieval romance then Pendragon is worth giving a try.


----------



## innerdude (Oct 6, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I think you have to be careful with this sort of claim.
> 
> I was a customer of WotC during the 4e era, and WotC consistently gathered good will from me, in the sense that it published useful stuff for the game at wanted to play, and sold it to me at reasonable prices. I get the sense that many 4e players had a similar view.
> 
> ...




Fair enough. There's certainly a distinction to be made of how we define "customer" in this instance, or "customer" versus "potential customer." But can anyone realistically look at D&D in the hands of Wizards of the Coast between the release of 4e in 2008 and the release of 5e in 2014 and not include the word "tumultuous" in the description?

From the critical backlash against 4e from a broad swath of the fanbase, to the yanking of PDFs even from existing clients who had already paid for them on legitimate digital distribution sites, to the misguided marketing, to the GSL release fiasco alienating third-party publishers, to the massively over-promised and under-delivered virtual tabletop, to the pulling of the character builder behind the paid web application wall, to the "We still can't figure out what they were trying to do even 5 years later" release of the Essentials line.......

I appreciate that you individually felt a warm sense of regard for the products Wizards was producing during that time period. But any honest outside viewer can easily argue that 2008-2014 was not a time period of positive customer outreach for WotC. Even vocal proponents of 4e decried the approaches taken for the character builder, VTT, and the overall quality of adventures.

Is it possible that this narrative is overstated in its effect? Possibly, but on the whole you'd have to be looking at it through some pretty skewed glasses to say that it's inaccurate. 

To be sure, you could also include the positive descriptor of "innovative" in terms of the rules. Whether 4e worked in the marketplace or not, it certainly brought about some unique thought advances around RPGs as a whole. I personally owe a great debt to 4e, as the change from 3e to 4e was the impetus for me to really begin questioning some of my deeply held assumptions about why I played RPGs at all, and how an RPG system can facilitate or hinder the gameplay style I want to engender in my groups.




pemerton said:


> Have you been playing any BW? My campaign is about 8 or 9 sessions in.




Sadly no! And truthfully, I'd love to pick your brain on how you got your group to adopt it, and to really dig in to the rules "crunch" to get it going. I'd be absolutely gung-ho to dive in and GM it for my group, but I know for a fact they'd look at the density of the rule book and blanche. 

I absolutely LOVE everything about the core assumptions of play outlined in the system. I just have to figure out how to get my group to play it.


----------



## innerdude (Oct 6, 2015)

Bluenose said:


> Kill the heretic, that knows not Pendragon nor plays it.
> 
> Rest of the list is good, differing from what I like mostly in order rather than content, but if you've any liking for King Arthur/the Matter of Britain/medieval romance then Pendragon is worth giving a try.




I've heard TONS of good things about Pendragon but have never been able to find a copy of it anywhere to preview it! And I adore Arthurian myth and medieval romance. I've just started reading Stephen Lawhead's _Pendragon Cycle_ and I LOVE it, and have read _Once and Future King_ several times throughout my life.

I also thought of something else too----If I wanted a class/level based system for traditional fantasy, I'd give a heavy look at _Novus_ as well. The 2d10 exploding/imploding dice mechanic seems way more interesting than straight-up d20.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2015)

innerdude said:


> I'd love to pick your brain on how you got your group to adopt it, and to really dig in to the rules "crunch" to get it going. I'd be absolutely gung-ho to dive in and GM it for my group, but I know for a fact they'd look at the density of the rule book and blanche.
> 
> I absolutely LOVE everything about the core assumptions of play outlined in the system. I just have to figure out how to get my group to play it.



I spent a couple of years promoting it in casual conversation, as something I'd like to try when our 4e game came to an end. In fact our 4e game is still going, but over the past year or so we've had trouble making quorum for 4e and hence the BW game has started as the alternative.

Besides my own promotion of the system, key has been one of my players - who is very technically savvy and also likes intricate PC motivations/backstories - buying a copy of BW Gold and falling in love with the system.

As far as the mechanics are concerned, we rolled it out bit-by-bit. The first session or two only had versus test plus a little bit of magic. So far we've also had 3 or 4 duels of wits, 2 fights!, and 1 or 2 range and cover shoot-outs.

The biggest ongoing complexity is, in fact, tracking tests and artha expenditure for advancement. It's a book-keeping heavy system.

The other thing about the system, which is a big contrast with 4e and I suspect would be with Savage Worlds as well, is how gritty it is. A _lot_ of checks fail, and many PCs will start with low Resources which means that the PCs will be poor and hungry. In my campaign, the result of this is that three PCs are either in debt or in service to a fourth (the elven princess, the only one with a decent Resources ability).


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Oct 7, 2015)

Each of the three groups that I regularly play with has tried out 5e, but found it not to be as crunch heavy as our preferred style.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Oct 7, 2015)

.


----------



## TheFindus (Oct 7, 2015)

innerdude said:


> Not surprising to me at all, considering that Paizo has consistently gathered good will from its customers over the past 5-6 years, and WotC has not, up until the 5e release. Plus, clearly 5e and Pathfinder are serving very different audiences, those who prefer heavy crunch versus those who don't.



Really? Speak for yourself only please. I have been a great customer of WotC during the 4E years. They had my good will until it was clear what 5e would look like. The same is true for many people I play with. Some (or even most?) of them are still customers of WotC because of 4E and not 5e.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Oct 7, 2015)

I haven't because...



Aerris said:


> (snip)  For me, 4E was the perfect version of the game. I recall reading through the 4E Player’s Handbook and thinking to myself “This is the D&D I’ve always wanted!”  (snip)




... 4E is the edition that suits me and my group the best, and it remains my favourite iteration of the D&D rules since I began with Holmes in 1981.



Imaculata said:


> (snip) To me, 3rd edition was the first system that made sense. (snip)




I agree with that statement. I sometimes describe 3E as the _necessary_ edition because it's the one where the designers really started to ask _Why?_ and try to answer that question with something other than a non-sequitor. Sure, it got frustrating to run as it grew but it was such a breath of fresh air when it was first released. (I'm not a fan of EGG as a designer so that may explain why I am not a fan of AD&D.)


----------



## innerdude (Oct 8, 2015)

TheFindus said:


> Really? Speak for yourself only please. I have been a great customer of WotC during the 4E years. They had my good will until it was clear what 5e would look like. The same is true for many people I play with. Some (or even most?) of them are still customers of WotC because of 4E and not 5e.




First off as a disclaimer, I literally have zero skin in this game. I've not bought a single WotC or Paizo product of any kind since 2011, which is the last time I played a "D&D" game of any fashion, and probably won't play one for at least another 5 years. So when I make this comment, I'm not making any judgment about the quality of any product produced by either company, because I have almost zero interest in purchasing product from either. 

As I mentioned previously, my comments were not directed at any one particular individual or group, but to the general body of RPG players collectively. But even if you're a big fan of 4e, it doesn't mean that WotC has been above reproach for a litany of missteps around customer PR and good will.

It's entirely consistent to say that 4e is a good system, while also saying that WotC generally performed badly at customer outreach and PR between 2008 and 2014. In my opinion the worst offense was the yanking of PDFs from legitimate digital distributors, directly affecting customers who had already paid for the product. It was exactly the kind of knee-jerk, short-sighted corporate arrogance and transparent self-interest that I find distasteful.


----------



## Talmek (Oct 8, 2015)

While I would be hard-pressed to disagree that 5e was the best thing that has happened *to the hobby*, my group and I are at a crossroads of sorts as to which game to play (D&D 5e vs. 13th Age). To be fair, my group consists of 75% true novices (never played a TTRPG before) with one other player that has been in the hobby for around 4 years. The narrative role playing aspect of 13th Age combined with the simplicity of the rules seems to be our group's biggest draw away from 5e right now. My entire group is aligned that the narrative aspects and the combined storytelling is what we are looking for, and that means for us that fewer rules allow us to play a more story-focused game, rather than trying to remember the rules.

Don't get me wrong; I love 5e (for the most part); however, as an owner of both systems and having read both and played both it appears that we may be moving away from 5e as our preferred system for the next campaign.

To answer the OP's questions directly:

- 1&2 are both accurate for 5e appealing to me; and
- *4)* my group would prefer less rules and more story for the next campaign, and we just wanted to try a new system.


----------



## GrahamWills (Oct 8, 2015)

Talmek;6723919The narrative role playing aspect of 13th Age combined with the simplicity of the rules seems to be our group's biggest draw away from 5e right now. My entire group is aligned that the narrative aspects and the combined storytelling is what we are looking for said:
			
		

> For us, our group liked 4e, and 13th Age did a nice job of taking good bits of 3.5 and 4e and making a coherent whole. Especially nice is wholesale ditching of rules that are just not worth including and replacing them with narration (grappling, pole-arm tricks and gridded combat). You could also make a good case that it's better supported that 5e is too. The recent Stone Thief campaign and the year's worth of free playable campaign (which I think takes you through all the level ranges) combined with a mix for things like Book of Loot, 13 True Ways, and 3rd party items like Thule and Midgard may well outweighs WOTC offering.
> 
> 5e still just seems OK. No issues with it, just that it doesn't seem to hit any particular need. our group has played and enjoyed it at cons, but we;ve enjoyed other things more, so for us, it's not really any reason NOT to play it that is in question, rather lack of reason TO play it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Starfox (Oct 17, 2015)

Best thing that happened since the d20 (from the OP) - that is quite a long time now: http://www.cnet.com/news/ancient-d20-die-emerges-from-the-ashes-of-time/


----------



## Campbell (Oct 17, 2015)

Personally, for me it's not about switching or not. I tend to prefer playing more games in short form over multiple year long campaigns. I just have not yet found a compelling reason to play in or run a 5e game over some other game.  5e is mostly just non-objectionable. For dungeon bashing I find Basic D&D to be a better game. For tactical fantasy I'm starting to like Shaintar/Savage Worlds*. For high octane character driven fantasy I like Dungeon World, the way I play 4e, and it looks like Exalted 3e. Add other games I like including Vampire - The Requiem 2e, Apocalypse World, Masks, Stars Without Number, and Edge of the Empire into the mix and I just ain't got no time for 5e.

* Caveat: Tactical fantasy isn't really something I like that much as a regular experience. Savage Worlds can be a lot of fun for that particular play experience.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 17, 2015)

innerdude said:


> First off as a disclaimer, I literally have zero skin in this game. I've not bought a single WotC or Paizo product of any kind since 2011, which is the last time I played a "D&D" game of any fashion, and probably won't play one for at least another 5 years. So when I make this comment, I'm not making any judgment about the quality of any product produced by either company, because I have almost zero interest in purchasing product from either.
> 
> As I mentioned previously, my comments were not directed at any one particular individual or group, but to the general body of RPG players collectively. But even if you're a big fan of 4e, it doesn't mean that WotC has been above reproach for a litany of missteps around customer PR and good will.
> 
> It's entirely consistent to say that 4e is a good system, while also saying that WotC generally performed badly at customer outreach and PR between 2008 and 2014. In my opinion the worst offense was the yanking of PDFs from legitimate digital distributors, directly affecting customers who had already paid for the product. It was exactly the kind of knee-jerk, short-sighted corporate arrogance and transparent self-interest that I find distasteful.




This is mostly true from my perspective. The 4e core rule books were poorly organized, the DMG had weak unfocused directives on how to use the thing, and there were a host of bad business decisions made during its life cycle that left me with some poor impressions. I'm probably still bitter about Essentials turning the bus around just as the Dark Sun provided us a compelling glimpse of what 4e play could be like.


----------



## Necrosnoop110 (Oct 17, 2015)

3.5E has so much more depth of resources. We are running one 5E game. So far so good.


----------



## Zathris (Oct 17, 2015)

I don't hate WotC in the general sense, I just hate them right now. The iTT debacle, the slow content death followed by actual death of Dragon magazine, the absurd mismanagement and lack of support for the RPGA that almost killed LFR, the uncoordinated messes that were events at major conventions, the selfish intentional mismanagment of 4e in general ... Yeah, I'm not happy with Mearls and Co.

Maybe next edition they won't push "The classes aren't balanced, and that makes them more fun" as a design Feature.

edit: Lets not forget Closing down the Forums, because dismantling your connection to the community is a good way to keep them around.


----------



## Cristian Andreu (Oct 17, 2015)

Among the people I know, most of those of us who played Pathfinder moved onto 5e, while several of those who went to 4e are sticking to it for the time being, apparently because they prefer the more tactical approach. Even some friends who never made the jump beyond AD&D 2e have switched to 5e recently; a regular reason for this is that they are finding conversion of material very easy.

I do know several people playing both PF and 4e that haven't moved to 5e due to a lack of Castilian translation, though.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Oct 18, 2015)

I haven't because while it improves on 4th edition--which I avoided for simplifying too much--it still seems oversimplified. That, and I've found other systems that give me a generic fantasy RPG feeling in a more streamlined way than any version of D&D.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 18, 2015)

Zhaleskra said:


> I haven't because while it improves on 4th edition--which I avoided for simplifying too much--it still seems oversimplified. That, and I've found other systems that give me a generic fantasy RPG feeling in a more streamlined way than any version of D&D.




That's an interesting statement - you want streamlined, but complex?  Or, what?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> That's an interesting statement - you want streamlined, but complex?



When you put it that way it sounds...

...pretty good, actually. 

It's not like anyone wants complexity for its own sake, it's just that complexity is a price you pay for more choices.  The better those choices are structured/presented/balanced the less onerous that cost in complexity can feel.


----------



## Miladoon (Oct 19, 2015)

I joined the WoTC boards just to be part of the 5E play test.  I am glad I did. I was intrigued with the design philosophy. Making the game mine has been my kind of thing and I probably won't move on DMing any other version.

As a player I look for Moldvay's OD&D, Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperborea, E6 3.5, and 5E.  

But I wonder what is going to happen with Pathfinder if/when 5E goes OGL style. Wonder if Paizo would drop Pathfinder and go all out on 5E support. It would be an interesting decision.  There are 3PP companies chomping at the bit to be the 5E support stud. Does Paizo split and keep Pathfinder and do 5E support?  Can they keep up with a new 5E OGL company, if they stay loyal to Pathfinder?

I don't play Pathfinder but I admire Paizo's business plan.  They pretty much taught companies how to sell the hobby. For that, I bought one of their books.  But after that, I boycott them because of what they did to the goblin...

Who knows?


----------



## Zhaleskra (Oct 20, 2015)

Tony summed up in a couple sentences what I thought it would take a long time to explain as a "Yes, and".


----------



## Umbran (Oct 20, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> When you put it that way it sounds...
> 
> ...pretty good, actually.




It may sound good, but lots of things sound good.  Someone handing me a million dollars, no strings attached, sounds good, but that's terribly unlikely. 

How many games in the history of man actually have such quality?  Go?  Chess?  Mancala? A few card games?  They work with *extremely* limited play choices.  RPGs have very broad play choices.  

So, I think the implied question is: complex *and* streamlined - is this a reasonable expectation?


----------



## Zhaleskra (Oct 20, 2015)

Easy where it needs to be, streamlined where it needs to be, complex where it needs to be.

That work for you?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It may sound good, but lots of things sound good.  Someone handing me a million dollars, no strings attached, sounds good, but that's terribly unlikely.
> 
> How many games in the history of man actually have such quality?



Depends on where you draw the line for 'complex' and 'streamlined.'   A more cogent question might be:  can a game be both as or more complex than another, and no less streamlined?  I think the answer is yes.   A good design can manage more complexity - and the benefits of complexity, like a wealth of meaningful/viable choices - without becoming unwieldy.  A bad design may become unwieldy even without having reaped much of the benefits of complexity.



> Go?  Chess?  Mancala? A few card games?  They work with *extremely* limited play choices.



Not where I'd draw the line, since we're talking about RPGs.  A game like Go or Chess is reasonably simple in terms of the rules, but very deep in play.  RPGs are often the opposite:  very complex rules, but without correspondingly deeper play in that sense (but much broader play, even to the point of being 'infinite games).  



> So, I think the implied question is: complex *and* streamlined - is this a reasonable expectation?



Yes.  Mind you, in that relative sense (above).  Compared to how complex and not at all streamlined (complicated, 'baroque,' 'clunky') early RPGs were, for instance, many modern games could be reasonably called 'streamlined,' even the more complex ones, like modern D&D.



Zhaleskra said:


> Easy where it needs to be, streamlined where it needs to be, complex where it needs to be.
> 
> That work for you?



If you could all agree where a game 'needs' to be each of those things.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 22, 2015)

Of the three groups in our crew none have switched to 5e.

For two of those (including my own) the main reason is #4 from post 30: our ongoing 1e-variant campaigns pre-date 5e's release (one pre-dates 4e!) and we don't want to try such a major change on the fly.

The third group is a PF campaign that also pre-dates 5e's release.

For my part I have the 5e core-three books, starter kit, and some of the adventures; I *could* run it in a simplified form almost at the drop of a hat if I had to, but if I were to use it for my next long campaign I'd be doing a whole whack of houseruling and tweaking first.

And though WotC have given me all kinds of reasons to dislike them over the last decade or so (what they did to Dragon and Dungeon, their complete no-show at the latest GenCon, their awful marketing around the 4e release, etc.) they've also given me some reasons to like them (the way they went about designing and building 5e, the release of older books and adventures in hardcopy, putting a lot of classic adventures up as pdf's, etc.) and I still buy their stuff.

Lan-"by the time I get to the point of needing to decide which edition to use next chances are 6e will be out"-efan


----------



## Salamandyr (Oct 24, 2015)

Of the gamers I know who don't play 5e, one is a rep for _Castles & Crusades_, and the others prefer _Pathfinder_.  I personally am ambivalent about 5e.  I know it is just about perfect for the D&D I like to run, but I dislike the art and layout of the books so much that using them is an unpleasant experience, I yearn to get everyone to join me back in  OSR-land.*

*(currently running 5e, just avoiding using the books more than necessary).


----------



## Annandul (Oct 26, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It may sound good, but lots of things sound good.  Someone handing me a million dollars, no strings attached, sounds good, but that's terribly unlikely.
> 
> How many games in the history of man actually have such quality?  Go?  Chess?  Mancala? A few card games?  They work with *extremely* limited play choices.  RPGs have very broad play choices.
> 
> So, I think the implied question is: complex *and* streamlined - is this a reasonable expectation?




IMO, the word being sought for is "depth." While 5e is my preferred system, I too think some depth was lost in the process to make it more streamlined. Some of the optional rules in the DMG are cool are cool and put some back in without much added complexity, but that's a different matter.

I am considering switching away from 5e and towards 4e, though, for some of that tactical combat play that 5e lacks.


----------



## EthanSental (Oct 28, 2015)

TheFindus said:


> The people with whom I play 4E like highly tactical fights and the streamlined nature of this system.




Not to derail the thread - but I've never played 4e, only watched my friends playa couple sessions before they went to PF.  The one common comment made about 4e as people went up on level was the extremely long combat times due to the various daily powers and tactical nature of the fights with numerous comments saying 6 hours for some fights.  When you mention streamline in 4e, what are you referring to and you or others can PM if you'd like and I'd appreciate it either way.

I play in 2 groups, Dm one and play in the other.  one group got burned out on the groups perceived bloat of PF and tried 5e and love it.  The other plays whatever strike their fancy.  We played DCC, AD&D, Labrynth lord and had a blast playing all of them so it's basically whatever the dm feels like, we just go with it.  Sommeof those players play in another group that plays 5e online so since they play it in that group, they want to play something else in ours.  The roleplaying in all has been great, no matter the rules systems.


----------



## Demorgus (Oct 28, 2015)

My group is still playing 4th Edition mainly because my players are happy with the system. I'm sure when all the browsers stop supporting api like Silverlight, we'll make the leap to 5th Edition. They're open to this, though the thought of learning a new edition is a little daunting for some of the players. 

By the way the current campaign I'm running has been going strong for almost 2 1/2 years.


----------



## mflayermonk (Oct 28, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> From what I see online, as well as my own experience, 5e seems to appeal most to:
> 1) Those who liked AD&D/pre-3e D&D
> 2) Those who are fans of D&D in general
> 
> ...




I know 2 people that just hate WoTC. These are two people that played an incredible amount of WoTC games in the past.


Another 3 people I know just like the large amount of options in Pathfinder.


Personally, I don't feel 5e does enough to make it worth playing more than previous editions (of books I already own). As a side note, most 1e and 2e books sell for prices that they sold for at release. 
I made a comment a few months ago on how I started playing 5e and then quit after I played 13th Age's Eyes of the Stone Thief. Stone Thief just felt so fresh and filled with the excitement of the new. 

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...k-Peek/page7&p=6698541&viewfull=1#post6698541


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 29, 2015)

mflayermonk said:


> I played 13th Age's Eyes of the Stone Thief. Stone Thief just felt so fresh and filled with the excitement of the new.



I was impressed by Eyes o/t Stone Thief too, though I liked the way it, and the general 'living dungeon' concept, lampshaded some of the D&D-style-Dungeon's tropes.


----------



## ccs (Oct 30, 2015)

In the circles I game with, all but 5 people play 5e.  
(5e is not the ONLY game these groups/people play.  Just because 5e was added to the menu doesn't mean we dropped anything....)


Player 1: Would play 5e, just doesn't have the time.  And the 1e game he's already in isn't likely to wrap up any time soon.
Player 2: Has declined to play 5e based upon # of options.  He's addicted to the endless variety of PF/3x.
Player 3: Like #1, lacks time for another game.  But more importantly lacks any interest in even trying a different system than 1e/2e.
Player 4:  Refuses to play any D&D but 4e.  Good thing he likes other types of games....
Player 5:  Stated reason for not playing 5e is "Because you can play a Dragonborn & a Tiefling".


----------



## The Fighter-Cricket (Oct 30, 2015)

I like 4E very much. When I DM I like to play this edition. For me it is the edition which I will favor over all of them. But I really would have liked 5E to be an improvement over 4E concepts (which in the first playtest material wasn't that far off). As it got clearer that it would be more of an improved AD&D/3.x I was happy that it had become an usable and quite simple system. But it wasn't for me. So I stick to my one true love and keep on recruiting newbies into the hobby through 4E. I would really like to try out 5E for myself as a player one day, maybe for a handful of sessions.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 30, 2015)

My group only switched from 2E to 3.5E a year or so back. We're having fun with it, no need to change again, with all the expense and hassle involved.


----------



## TheFindus (Oct 30, 2015)

EthanSental said:


> Not to derail the thread - but I've never played 4e, only watched my friends playa couple sessions before they went to PF.  The one common comment made about 4e as people went up on level was the extremely long combat times due to the various daily powers and tactical nature of the fights with numerous comments saying 6 hours for some fights.  When you mention streamline in 4e, what are you referring to and you or others can PM if you'd like and I'd appreciate it either way.



In my experience, 4E combats can last 2 hours or so. I would guess a lot of them last 90 minutes, depending on the setup. I have never played a combat that lasted 6 hours, so I cannot say anything about it. There are 6 PCs in the group I play with. When we played with only 4 PCs combats did not last that long, I would guess 60 minutes maybe?
What the 4E group really likes is the fact that there are dailies and powers that let you do extraordinary things to begin with (meaning at level 1). Our combats tend to be precisely about where one PC or enemy stands, if PC 1 is close enough to PC 2 to take full advantage of powers etc. And this is combined with roleplaying combats, too. So, for instance if the Psion is standing too far away from the Paladin, that player will be reminded on a roleplaying level and the tactical discussion is conducted on a roleplaying level as well. At least most of the time.

Regarding the streamlined nature of the system: 
As a DM you know what to do and the system takes you by the hand. There are tables with numbers from which you can easily build encounters, make your own monsters or construct a skill challenge. The system is streamlined enough that you can, for example, easily refluff an existing level 17 opponent into something with an entirely different flair, because the mechanics are sound.
As a player, all PCs have the same setup. The roles make it easy to understand what your character should and will be able to do. The math is pretty clear while the powers, magic items, you name it, can be refluffed quite easily. The chassis of at-will, encounter and daily powers are good as every class can enjoy them. The players also love the magic item list that will provide their PCs with useful items they can count on. As a player I have always disliked the fact that in the 80s my fighter had to switch from broadsword to axe just because the "module" provided an axe +2 but not a flaming broadsword +1 (which I would have liked much better because flames on a sword are much cooler). We are glad these days are over.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Oct 30, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> If you could all agree where a game 'needs' to be each of those things.




Well for me, that's easy where things don't require much thought, streamlined being the core mechanic remaining the core mechanic most of the time (_e.g.,_ no sub-system for grappling), and complex where you need to put more thought into it than "I hit target X" or "I cast such and such spell at target Y".


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 30, 2015)

Zhaleskra said:


> Well for me, that's easy where things don't require much thought, streamlined being the core mechanic remaining the core mechanic most of the time (_e.g.,_ no sub-system for grappling)



All modern versions of D&D and d20 games in general would seem to qualify, there, in the most basic sense of d20 + mods vs DC.  



> and complex where you need to put more thought into it than "I hit target X" or "I cast such and such spell at target Y".



Those two have been more or less complex and more or less complex relative to eachother, at various times.


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 30, 2015)

I only know people playing Pathfinder and 3.x when it comes to D&D, and a smattering of other games like Shadowrun, WoD, Eclipse Phase, etc. Nobody I know dislikes 5e (a very different situation from 4e), and they'd happily play it, but it isn't anyone's first or favorite option. Most folks are happy with PF as a system and the options that they have for character customization, plus the adventure and AP options alongside the very in-depth setting material keeps it incredibly fresh IMO.

Outside of store-hosted AL stuff, I don't know anyone locally playing 5e.


----------



## Xaelvaen (Oct 30, 2015)

I don't know anyone in my circle of DnD acquaintances that hasn't converted wholly.  We were playing Fate/Numenera, and anything else we could get our hands on to avoid Pathfinder and 4e.  They just took too much work, honestly, and we were lazy.


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 30, 2015)

My group is still solidly in Pathfinder land. I think our brand loyalty to D&D could easily see us switch if WotC actually put some stuff out that isn't an adventure.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 31, 2015)

I haven't.

From the player's side I've tried it with multiple DMs and found that the fun parts of the game were all ones where the rules were involved as little as possible. The DMs were pretty decent but the system was adding nothing to it other than staying a bit out of the way. The combat was a slog - and one where tactics weren't terribly important. The skill rules were largely DM fiat.

From the DM's side I can't think of a single reason to try running it again other than a very insular group. If I want to run tight dungeon crawls I'm breaking out the old Rules Cyclopaedia. If I want to run high action cinematic D&D I'm breaking out 4e. I find 5e to be a lukewarm compromise between these two. If I want to largely ignore the rules and get on with things I've got everything from Fate Accelarated onwards. If I want evocative and gritty characters I've Apocalypse World. I just can't picture anything that I would want 5e to do that I can't do better with a different game. Especially with the way recovery is tied to magic, making a low magic sword & sorcery game impractical.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Oct 31, 2015)

Tony, I obviously disagree with your assessment of D&D and d20 Modern. It's the subsystems that drive me away from D&D. It got me into tabletop RPGs, yes, but I've noticed what I don't like about it.


----------



## Saplatt (Oct 31, 2015)

Of the dozen or so regular players I know, only two haven't switched yet, and in both cases, it's because one isn't playing any version of D&D right now and the other is too busy to game at all.


----------



## Aiwendil (Nov 2, 2015)

I haven't switched, because I'm still perfectly happy with 2E.


----------



## Starfox (Nov 2, 2015)

Lets keep this thread on 5E, please.

Edit: Doh, noticed thread moved on. Aw well...


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 3, 2015)

GrahamWills said:


> When we tried 5e, it was like "hmmm. yeah. they got rid of some problems and made stuff simpler. What was new and exciting?" and there was a long pause. It's hard to look at it and say "this is cool". So we went off to play stuff that was cool.




That was pretty much our take as well. Especially since we're spending a lot more time on Real Adult Stuff these days, the desire to spend $100 and 900 pages on an incremental adjustment to 3.5E is just not there. Having branched off into a lot of lighter, quicker, cheaper, and frankly more interesting indies as RPG time has gotten rarer, there just is not anything that screams "Play me!" The only friend of mine who moved to 5E has been singing its praises, but I'm pretty sure it's helped by him having run a 4E campaign all the way to level 30 immediately prior. So clearly his judgement is not to be trusted. 

Dungeon World and Fate are the latest love affairs, and being _actually_ rules light (whereas 5E is more "rules light if you've only ever played rules heavy games") has been hugely in their favor. Even something like 13th Age, which does some really interesting things and I'd love to try sometime, I just can't see spending the time to crunch through. If we ever go back to D&D, it'll probably be me dragging folks into an E6-ish 4E game. Though even that seems unlikely since computer tools feel totally vital to the game, I'm not paying for Insider (if the 4E tools are even still there?), and the offline ones are either clunky (characters) or straight up busted (monsters).


----------



## The Fighter-Cricket (Nov 4, 2015)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> If we ever go back to D&D, it'll probably be me dragging folks into an E6-ish 4E game.




Shame on me to not know. But: what do you consider an E6-ish 4E game...?


----------



## Nagol (Nov 4, 2015)

The Fighter-Cricket said:


> Shame on me to not know. But: what do you consider an E6-ish 4E game...?




E6 refers to a style of D&D where the level is capped relatively low -- the number after the E is the highest possible level.  Typically, further character growth is possible but in a sideways direction through feats.  Fundamentally it is a way to apply flattened math to earlier versions of D&D and to cap the excessive power of high level spells.  

 See more here


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 4, 2015)

Yep. In 4E terms, it basically amounts to making the maximum attainable level 10 (or possibly 11 if you want to give folks just a _tiny_ taste of paragon paths) and letting players take feats or additional lower-level powers beyond that. I haven't gone whole hog on the idea, but my last 4E campaign only had 3 PCs and I pulled some similar hacks to make up for the lack of firepower. An extra level 1 encounter power here, a feat there, maybe an extra level 2 utility (it's been a while). It worked out very nicely, especially since we were running Red Hand of Doom, which would've felt a little weird if I scaled down enemy counts too much.


----------



## Manbearcat (Nov 4, 2015)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> Yep. In 4E terms, it basically amounts to making the maximum attainable level 10 (or possibly 11 if you want to give folks just a _tiny_ taste of paragon paths) and letting players take feats or additional lower-level powers beyond that. I haven't gone whole hog on the idea, but my last 4E campaign only had 3 PCs and I pulled some similar hacks to make up for the lack of firepower. An extra level 1 encounter power here, a feat there, maybe an extra level 2 utility (it's been a while). It worked out very nicely, especially since we were running Red Hand of Doom, which would've felt a little weird if I scaled down enemy counts too much.




This is accomplished well by going the Neverwinter Campaign Setting route and contracting the 3 tiers to level 1-10.  You can either just (a) have Character Theme (Features at 1/5/10 as normal), or, alternatively, (b) you can give the players their level 1 Theme ability (at level 1), their level 16 Paragon Path ability (or a derivative thereof at 5), and whatever is their seminal Epic Destiny ability at level 10.


----------



## Nibelung (Nov 6, 2015)

EthanSental said:


> Not to derail the thread - but I've never played 4e, only watched my friends playa couple sessions before they went to PF.  The one common comment made about 4e as people went up on level was the extremely long combat times due to the various daily powers and tactical nature of the fights with numerous comments saying 6 hours for some fights.  When you mention streamline in 4e, what are you referring to and you or others can PM if you'd like and I'd appreciate it either way.




First off, I want to say that I don't see anything wrong with a 6-hour long combat *as long as the combat is interesting during all this time*. That is the major difference I see between 3e and 4e (the two D&D editions I played the most). 

In 3e many fights would finish in a round or two at mid/high levels, but the combat was really, REALLY long. Because the characters had a bunch of options that could potentially halt the action for math reasons. Eg, you could level drain, exhaust, shivering touch, enfeeble, etc... a monster and that would require the DM to recalculate almost everything in the monster stats. Or they could summon a monster that would break the action economy because now that player could act 2+ times per turn. Or the ranger had a pair of Wounding scimitars that every two hits we had to recalculate the HP the monster because HD was not linked in any logical way with the monster's CR. And I didn't even started talking about how you could have six buff spells, each giving a different bonus type to the same thing, and you had to verify any odd-case casting if that would stack with what was already used or not. 

In short, 3e combat was "short", but was tedious and filled with minutiae. You had 20 minutes combats, but that was 5 minutes for each character mostly doing math and not "making decisions" (aka, playing the game). 

In 4e, there is very few things (outside dailies) that affect the game for more than one round. The game also assumes you are throwing X monsters against X PCs (instead of the old CR rule that assume a single monsters against a 4-person party, and then good luck if your group had a different size), and also most (non-elite/solo) monsters don't have special attacks beyond a single encounter (or recharge) attack and their racials/basics. This diminishes complexity at the same time it adds depth. So, while on average a 4e combat would last 60-90 minutes, it could last from 6 to 10 rounds, but every round the player would make an important tactical decision to finish the combat. A single individual turn hardly would take more than a minute or two (unless your group REALLY like to talk through every option, but any DM can easily set a time limit for discussion and thinking), and you knew your turn would come back before 10 minutes had passed. 

In short, 4e combat was "long", but it actually required you to bring your best tactics to each round, and requires good group coordination to pull off the really impressive tricks. The combat took a long time, but it always had the potential to be an interesting action scene. 

Now, 4e have a ton of shortcomings that a lot of their fans are well-aware of it. The most common is usually related with a lack of out-of-combat tools for players beyond Skills (that are kinda too broad), Rituals (that many people ignore because of their monetary cost to cast), and general common sense ("I was on the army, so I know coats of arms", "My mother was an armorsmith, so I might know common alloys", etc). 

However, if what you actually like are impressive tactical combats, no edition can match 4e's combat depth. Specially if you have a good DM that know how to use terrain features instead of the good old 10x10 empty room with some columns.


----------



## Starfox (Nov 6, 2015)

Nibelung, I feel Pathfinder cured many of the 3.5 ills you mention, such as the impact of negative levels and attribute damage. And a Pathfinder combat involving terrain usually does so in much more lethal/interesting ways than the infamous page XX of 4E did - when the map has an impact on a combat in Pathfinder, that impact is often close to absolute - no level appropriate falling damage.

But we both digress - this is a thread about who liked 5E.


----------



## Nibelung (Nov 6, 2015)

Starfox said:


> Nibelung, I feel Pathfinder cured many of the 3.5 ills you mention, such as the impact of negative levels and attribute damage. And a Pathfinder combat involving terrain usually does so in much more lethal/interesting ways than the infamous page XX of 4E did - when the map has an impact on a combat in Pathfinder, that impact is often close to absolute - no level appropriate falling damage.




Maybe. I didn't read PF or joined any group playing it because I fell in love with 4e since day 1. Some of my players did had PF experience, and from what I heard, it kept the main theme D&D always had on "exploration" more than "combat". 4e is still the only system where you can have common well-developed fights instead of one-sided onslaughts with the eventual good fight. 

That worked for my group mostly because we noticed that out of combat we usually boiled down to free-form roleplay anyway, so the lack of tools for that on 4e didn't affected us at all. May not work with others that actually enjoy and use those tools with more frequency. 



Starfox said:


> But we both digress - this is a thread about who liked 5E.




Technically, this is a thread about why we didn't switched to 5e, so talking about the good things of your favorite edition is within the topic.


----------



## Manbearcat (Nov 6, 2015)

Nibelung said:


> That worked for my group mostly because we noticed that out of combat we usually boiled down to free-form roleplay anyway, so *the lack of tools for that on 4e* didn't affected us at all. May not work with others that actually enjoy and use those tools with more frequency.




Agree with your post above, but not so much this (in fact, I couldn't disagree more).  4e is the only form of D&D with codified noncombat conflict resolution that integrates PC build rules with the resolution mechanics to seamlessly produce dramatic rising action, falling action and denouement for every high fantasy trope out there (assuming sincere, creative players and deft GMing of course)!  If is definitely not just "free form roleplay" and the system is certainly not "lacking in tools".  More than anything, 4e is my favorite edition of D&D precisely because of this (even moreso than tight encounter budgeting/maths, actor/director stance capacity for players, the coherent/transparent reward cycle, transparent and robust player flags in the way of themes/PP/ED and how the push play toward the conflicts that players care about, the narrative of "the Rally" built into combat, martial/inspirational healing, forced movement, and dynamic/interactive battlefields and bad guys).


----------



## Demonspell (Nov 6, 2015)

I have started a 5e campaign for my son and his friends, however, I also am running a 3.5 campaign for several years now. We chose not to go to 4e, because of limitations on the classes, and drastic differences between 3.5 and 4e that would have required major changes to the characters, and the players were not willing to accept those changes. The party still doesn't want to switch of 5e because we have characters in teh party that haven't been fully introduced in 5e yet. We have a Psion, and I still haven't seen a finished Psionics supplement yet. I have told them that eventually it will happen, but we need more information first.


----------



## Annandul (Nov 7, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> ...4e is the only form of D&D with codified noncombat conflict resolution that integrates PC build rules with the resolution mechanics to seamlessly produce dramatic rising action, falling action and denouement for every high fantasy trope out there (assuming sincere, creative players and deft GMing of course)!




Could you elaborate on this, please? I've done a read-through of the rules and I'm not sure where this comes from -- not that I doubt that it works this way for you! Which pieces of the design bring this out in your game?


----------



## Manbearcat (Nov 7, 2015)

Annandul said:


> Could you elaborate on this, please? I've done a read-through of the rules and I'm not sure where this comes from -- not that I doubt that it works this way for you! Which pieces of the design bring this out in your game?




Sure.  

Skill Challenges are a universal noncombat conflict resolution framework.  They're meant to be applied to resolve everything from a parley, to a chase (whether the PCs or the NPCs are the pursuit), to a perilous journey (through malevolent ruins, through a city where you're wanted, through untamed wilderness, etc), to a mad escape from a collapsing mine, to the infiltration of the capital building to secure sensitive documents, to any other sort of caper or genre trope.

What is at stake is outlined.  The GM uses the framework by level (typically of-level but maybe within 1 - 3 levels of the PCs) and complexity (1-5).  (a) The GM frames the PCs into the conflict and plays the adversity, (b) the players (or a particular PC if the heat is on them) make fictional-positioning-relevant action declarations for their PCs by telegraphing intent to the GM and leveraging their resources (Primary Skills buffed by Secondary Skills and Advantage, Healing Surges, Coin, Rituals, applicable Powers), (c) the resolution mechanics are invoked, (d) the GM then evolves the fiction (by continuously escalating things, dramatically arc-wise, until the PCs reach 3 failures or n successes - contingent upon complexity) toward its ultimate climax and denoument (a- d repeats until that takes place).

Very akin to the scene-based, noncombat conflict resolution mechanics of other systems (Dogs in the Vineyard or Cortex+ for instance) though made more generic to accommodate the broad spectrum of conflicts/tropes in a D&D game.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 7, 2015)

Annandul said:


> Could you elaborate on this, please? I've done a read-through of the rules and I'm not sure where this comes from -- not that I doubt that it works this way for you! Which pieces of the design bring this out in your game?




To jump in here, I think [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is talking about Skill Challenges. Now the official guidance for Skill Challenges _sucks_. It's not the mechanics that are the problem, it's that the guidance amounts to a fly on the wall recording what the DM does without ever actually explaining why they are doing so, which leads to people copying the actions in inappropriate ways. I think a much better writeup is the one for my retroclone - Three Strikes Plans.


----------



## The Fighter-Cricket (Nov 7, 2015)

I like the name "Three Strikes Plan" - a skill challenge is in its core exactly that. Kudos.


----------



## Nibelung (Nov 8, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> Skill Challenges are a universal noncombat conflict resolution framework.(...)




And IMO, it was a prime example of why 4e works much better in combat situations than outside combat situations. 

Yes, the system tell you to give out XP for it, but the quantity is very low compared to combat (requires a Complexity 5 SC to match a same-level combat), and have the potential to end up being a game of guess until you figure out the correct skills that can achieve successes, and then the party focus on the 1-2 players who have those skills at high values while the rest roll Aid Another or stay out of the way. 

I like the _idea_ of Skill Challenges. But I think that 4e's execution of that particular idea just didn't hit the target the way it intended. The fact that the system also had troubles with the universal DC table just piled up on the problems as well (The DC table was "fixed" two or three times during 4e's lifespam). I fixed it on my table with a bunch of house rules, but that do not mean Skill Challenges "by the book" are not broken or badly written.


----------



## Manbearcat (Nov 9, 2015)

Nibelung said:


> And IMO, it was a prime example of why 4e works much better in combat situations than outside combat situations.
> 
> Yes, the system tell you to give out XP for it, but the quantity is very low compared to combat (requires a Complexity 5 SC to match a same-level combat), and have the potential to end up being a game of guess until you figure out the correct skills that can achieve successes, and then the party focus on the 1-2 players who have those skills at high values while the rest roll Aid Another or stay out of the way.
> 
> I like the _idea_ of Skill Challenges. But I think that 4e's execution of that particular idea just didn't hit the target the way it intended. The fact that the system also had troubles with the universal DC table just piled up on the problems as well (The DC table was "fixed" two or three times during 4e's lifespam). I fixed it on my table with a bunch of house rules, but that do not mean Skill Challenges "by the book" are not broken or badly written.




Hey Nibelung.  Continuing the topic is too much thread drift and, suffice to say, the nuance of our disagreements (and the nuance of our agreements) would require a meaty response from myself (and I've had a lot to say on this subject in the last 3 + years on this board).  If you (or anyone else) would like to have a(nother) dedicated Skill Challenge topic under which we could discuss various issues, grievances, techniques, please go ahead and start one or PM me about it and I'll start one with a lead post discussing the various issues.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 9, 2015)

Nibelung said:


> And IMO, it was a prime example of why 4e works much better in combat situations than outside combat situations.
> 
> Yes, the system tell you to give out XP for it, but the quantity is very low compared to combat (requires a Complexity 5 SC to match a same-level combat),



 They're comparable, actually.  A complexity 5 SC is the same exp as a combat vs 5 same-level standard monsters, a baseline encounter for a 5-PC party.  



> and have the potential to end up being a game of guess until you figure out the correct skills that can achieve successes, and then the party focus on the 1-2 players who have those skills at high values while the rest roll Aid Another or stay out of the way.



I guess there's always a potential to 'do it wrong' with any system, but that's not how SCs were ever presented (while, OTOH, I'll agree that they were initially presented very badly, indeed...).



> I like the _idea_ of Skill Challenges. But I think that 4e's execution of that particular idea just didn't hit the target the way it intended.



SCs were an interesting idea with a lot of potential, and some real design failings as initially presented (they actually became /easier/ the greater the complexity, for instance).  While their full potential was never explored, the mechanics were fixed, but only really completely resolved two years in, and coinciding with Essentials, so easy to miss.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 10, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> The ones who seem most resistant to even giving 5e a chance seem to fall into a few categories:
> 1) Those who hate WotC and won't look at anything with their logo on it
> 2) Those who have found their edition already, and aren't really interested in anything new
> 3) Those who don't want to buy new books
> ...



So far, nobody in my extended group of 10-14 players has expressed any interest in the game.  AFAIK, I'm the only one who has even given it a look.

FWIW, we seem to be mostly in the 2nd category.


----------



## EthanSental (Nov 10, 2015)

What edition is that Danny?


----------



## Gilladian (Nov 10, 2015)

Well, I'm running a 5E campaign right now; my PCs are pushing 7th level - and we're not particularly enamored of it. I don't know why. One person dislikes the advantage/disad mechanic; another dislikes the skill system (and I'm not in love with tools). We all prefer 3e gridded combat and AoO's and the old saving throw system. I think after this campaign we'll be reverting to 3e (NOT Pathfinder), probably E6 variant, and limiting to mostly just PH classes, with a judicious addition of races, feats, and spells. It worked for us for years, and I think it will continue to do so.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 11, 2015)

EthanSental said:


> What edition is that Danny?




3.5/3.X.  And for 3.X systems, the closer to the original, the more people in our group liked it.  They mainly got mined for ideas to use in 3.5 campaigns.

We tried 4Ed, and while there were things about it several of us liked, it didn't really scratch the D&D spot for most of us.  It seemed...forced.  As in, there were D&Disms, tropes, and legacy issues that just seemed shoehorned into 4Ed's mechanics...and not quite fitting.

Speaking only for myself, I'd like to have seen 4Ed mechanics used for a non-D&D FRPG.  Possibly even destructured a bit more, like how d20 morphed into M&M.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Nov 24, 2015)

For me personally, I like 5e well enough. I've played 2e - 5e. I liked 4e the least, but even that we played for 3 years and it was fun enough. I liked 13th Age better than 4e, but I like 5e better than 13th Age. 

Having played 5e for over a year however, I'm starting to wonder if it is really the best system for my preferences. I have begun reading a lot of OSR material lately which I have never had access to before, and I have to say....  I really like what I'm seeing. It is giving me a new perspective on the way 5e went and the other options out there. 

For instance, I don't like passive perception. I think it's quite broken. I don't like easy hiding in combat, I think that's broken too. And I don't like how greatly damage and HP increase over levels. I do like adv/disad (although in combination with smaller modifiers like +1 and +2 - I dont like only using adv/disad which is too blunt a modifier imo). I love bounded accuracy and the no magic item requirements. The standard healing rules are far too generous and death almost impossible in my experience. 

But looking around at OSR stuff, I'm seeing a new side of things. Combat is dangerous again. The mechanics are still pretty simple. Battles are quick. Magic items are cool. There is a variety of systems to choose from (and personally I like the sword and sorcery vibe of Crypts & Things best at the moment), and some are very innovative (eg: DCC). Most important of all however to me is that these OSR systems appear eminently hackable. It is so easy to swap out a mechanic, or add something in, to really make the game your perfect combo of features. 

So I guess over the last 12 months, I have gone from a 5e fan to 5e neutral, and from OSR neutral to an OSR fan. I have come round to the view that OSR games are closest to my preferred baseline, and then it's just a matter of poaching the best ideas from other systems as add ons ... eg: adding Adv/disad from 5e, Mighty deeds of arms from DCC, One Unique Thing from 13th Age, and Feat like abilities from 5e... end result: gaming nirvana!


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 24, 2015)

Our group of six played through the Starter Set enhanced by the Basic Rules download over four months back when that first came on the scene.  It was shelved with plans to revisit it when the OGL was integrated into their publishing model.  Two of the players who had to bow out of the group for work related reasons have since been running/playing in a 5E game store campaign while another player gets in some AL along with his PFS at conventions and gamedays six or seven times a year. If the OGL had been used, we'd might have continued with 5E since it isn't a bad system.  We've mostly played 1E since then with some one-shots of other systems (Dresden Files next month) and we do a lot of boardgaming, card gaming, and wargaming as a group as well.


----------



## Emerikol (Nov 25, 2015)

Once it was clear that 5e wasn't really going to address my concerns in any way remotely seriously, I just washed my hands of WOTC.   Not saying the excitement of 6e won't draw me back for a peek but I feel like those in charge now just don't care about what I care about.

My major beef with 4e was dissociative mechanics and 5e has them in spades.  It's clear it's not an issue for the designers.  I think it's a game design trend so all power to them.  I'm just spending money on that.

I've had to move for work recently so I haven't started up any games.   I think though that if I do I might just write my own simplified version of a game and be done with it.  If I wanted a D&D flavored game I could play 3e core books only or 2e with houserules.   CoC would work as well and I have some of that.   Again I might have to houserule in places.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Nov 26, 2015)

Emerikol said:


> My major beef with 4e was dissociative mechanics and 5e has them in spades.




Yeah, the dissociative mechanics are a weak enough presence for me (definitely nothing like 4e) to not dissuade me from playing it, but I can definitely understand that objection. (I think it is possible to interpret them a bit differently to reduce the issue, with almost no house-ruling, but perhaps not enough for your needs.)

We are also still waiting on some of the older-edition flavor capturing options we were hoping for in the DMG. It doesn't seem to be a priority, but I'm hopeful it will eventually work out all right (and please be sooner rather than later WotC, lol).


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2015)

I have no interest in switching. 4e was my jam. While I'd rather play other systems (especially Fate), when it comes to dungeon delving and monster slaying, 4e is it for me. And very, very few people feel the way I do so no playing it.

5e feels too much like 3e, not something I really enjoyed or want to go back to; I've played at cons, but just looking at spell descriptions again bummed me out. Having a lot of sympathy for the 3e fans who felt abandoned during 4e's hayday, and seeing where that went, I don't want to be the sullen guy at the table and the bitter guy on the messageboards. That's no fun for anyone. So rather than be unhappy and playing because it's the only game in town, I just don't play.

I am glad that so many are enjoying the new edition though. Good that folks found what works for them.

Edit: Keep in mind that I didn't stop gaming with people because they moed on; I personally know no gamers locallly, haven't even been in a non-convention face-to-face game since 2012. Of my internet contacts I know maybe 1 playing 5e, and the rest play other games (PF, Exalted, etc).


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2015)

innerdude said:


> to the "We still can't figure out what they were trying to do even 5 years later" release of the Essentials line.......



To be honest I liked the essentials. IMO the Essentials were an attempt to grab the feel of earlier editions, make simpler characters or ones with minimal options/big fancy powers, in order to ease new people or to appease those who hated the big fat powers. One of the complaints of 4e was "Now every class feels like a wizard" in terms of resource management, selecting options and a lot og effects. Those who wanted very few fiddly bits could've picked up a Slayer or Thief and felt very little difference. Also some of the variants it offered were nice (I liked the Paladin's aura, for instance).

However, the Essentials came way, way too late. Those who had the problem it answered had well and truly left the building and their seats had gathered dust. Had the Essentials came first and the PHB1 classes came second somehow, I think it would've stemmed quite a few issues players had with the classes.


----------



## Sato (Dec 3, 2015)

I haven't because I don't want to have to pay a ton for a whole new system when everyone I know won't pay either. My whole group still plays 3.5 constantly, and with almost everything we need for free online, there's no reason (yet) to change over. Perhaps one day.


----------



## Fox Lee (Dec 4, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> 2) Those who have found their edition already



That's me right there. It's not that I haven't looked into 5e, but it seems to be mostly for people who found 4e to be a move _away_ from what they wanted. That's not me; 4e is pretty much my holy land. It's not perfect, to be sure, but it's as close as any system has ever gotten to what _I_, specifically and subjectively, want out of D&D. I'd have been interested if 5e was a refined 4e, but it seems to be more of a renaissance AD&D? Which is perfect for some folks, and that's great, but I have no fondness for AD&D. It's where I started, but it was never my home.

As for the rest of my regular group - one is of the same mind as me, one still plays 3.5e with another group but has no interest in 5e, and the other two are mostly system-ambivalent - they'd play/run 5e if that's what the group wanted, but wouldn't bother pushing for it.

Of the other friends I have who play(ed) - two moved away and don't have a group right now, but they are super into crunchy mechanics, tactical combat and MMO gameplay, so I doubt they would choose 5e over 4e. Another five or six play with my player who prefers 3.5e, and they play mostly 3.x/OGL d20 systems (3.5, d20 Modern, d20 Past, etc). They seem like they might enjoy 5e, as their main reason for not playing 4e is that it's too much game and not enough novel. However, they're also not particularly into learning new systems - they're much more interested in rules-light storyteller affairs - so I suspect they're just comfortable with the 3.x family's familiarity and feel no need to change.


----------



## Starfox (Dec 4, 2015)

Sato said:


> I haven't because I don't want to have to pay a ton for a whole new system when everyone I know won't pay either. My whole group still plays 3.5 constantly, and with almost everything we need for free online, there's no reason (yet) to change over. Perhaps one day.




Just FYI, Pathfinder ie even more open and widely available than 3.5. The reason is that as Paizo themselves operate under the OGL, all their rules are open. This is contrast to 3E and 3.5, where only the core books were covered y the license. For me, this was a major contributing factor to go Pathfinder - I could no longer be bothered to leaf through 10+ rule books for that spell or feat I wanted. No edition has been as available as Pathfinder, the 4E database was much worse and behind a paywall.


----------



## MwaO (Dec 4, 2015)

Rechan said:


> To be honest I liked the essentials. IMO the Essentials were an attempt to grab the feel of earlier editions, make simpler characters or ones with minimal options/big fancy powers, in order to ease new people or to appease those who hated the big fat powers. One of the complaints of 4e was "Now every class feels like a wizard" in terms of resource management, selecting options and a lot og effects. Those who wanted very few fiddly bits could've picked up a Slayer or Thief and felt very little difference. Also some of the variants it offered were nice (I liked the Paladin's aura, for instance).
> 
> However, the Essentials came way, way too late. Those who had the problem it answered had well and truly left the building and their seats had gathered dust. Had the Essentials came first and the PHB1 classes came second somehow, I think it would've stemmed quite a few issues players had with the classes.




I generally liked Essentials with three big caveats:
They used Essentials as 5e design space with the Expertise/Defense feats instead of just fixing the math by adding +1/2/3 to various things at 5/15/25 as a feat bonus. Because the various feats were so amazingly useful, most PCs had 2-3 of them by 11th. That ended up killing a lot of diversity in builds, simply because +6 to defenses total or +2 to hit is so overwhelmingly good for a single feat.

Most Essentials basic attack users needed a power called "(Insert Class Name)'s Basic Strike", which would count as an MBA and/or RBA depending on class and allow the Essentials' PC to use that power when relevant. That cleans up a lot of issues with poaching other powers. As an example Scout wouldn't use a basic attack with Dual Weapon Attack. It would only work with Scout's Basic Strike. That then fixes hybriding issues, too.

The fact that most books were really about half a book, because they repeated the information contained in the other books. That made it look really half-hearted as opposed to useful.


----------



## Bigkahuna (Dec 22, 2015)

New guy on the forum.. first post 

Interesting discussion reminiscent of a real life discussion I had recently about the same topic.  I know a number of groups who switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder and haven't even looked at 4e or 5e and appear to have no interest in it at all.  When I asked them why they basically told me that they had collected so many books and knew the system so intimately that switching at this point just seemed like far more of a hassle than it would be worth.

I think that this is perhaps the most convincing and understandable answer I had ever heard and I can honestly say that while I personally think 5e is the best version of D&D ever made, I can understand the appeal of pretty much every version of D&D ever made.  They really all brought something to the table and ultimately I think as new versions were released many people simply committed to one or another version mentally and financially so switching from that point is less a matter of what is "better (objectively or subjectively) and really more of a "meh.. I have all these books I'm not switching" kind of a thing.

I think its far more common among role-players (gamers in general) to hold on tightly to the things they know and love, than it is to switch and try something new.  Especially since switching and trying something new requires a new expenditure, time commitment (learning how to play etc..) with the caveat that you might end up after trying it (after spending money) not actually liking it as much as you did your old version.

Certainly if you got burned once that way, for example if you loved 3rd edition, bought 4th edition and didn't like it.  You might not be so eager to try it again with 5th edition or Pathfinder.. or whatever.

In any case I think its actually kind of a historical problem with D&D because unlike most gaming systems that sort of evolve through an approach of improvement, D&D editions have always been about re-inventing and re-imagining the game.  There was this constant push from the owners of the license to "re-create" D&D for a new generation when the reality was that new generations aren't created by supplying them with a new system or even a new product, new generations are created by the old generation of players that introduce them to the game.  I have been role-playing since I was 11 (40 now) and in all of those years I have never once met a person who randomly decided to play D&D by buying books off the shelf, gathering a group and just start playing.  There is always some history somewhere, some individual that introduces someone to the game and that and it catches on.

Sadly I think role-playing as a whole is suffering a great deal these days from the lack of understanding this unique element of the RPG market.  You can't market an RPG game to new potential customers or new generation of gamers, the only route available is to create communities who bring in the next generation of gamers.  Something that I think RPG publishers are really failing at right now because rather than expanding social media, digital communication and methods to bring people together they are actually shutting those things down.  Its becoming more and more common to see RPG publishers without printed books, without forums, without digital tools for their games.  They are sort of assuming these things are going to continue to be created by the general communities, and for a time they will but in the end I think these communities are going to be shrinking because they are becoming more and more fragmented. 

In any case, back to the point, I think the reason why there is fewer and fewer people switching to newer systems is because communities aren't growing anymore and they are stagnating as older generation players have already found their favorite systems and so that's what they play.  New generation gamers are more to seek out new game systems as they are fresh, inexperienced and more eager to try new things, but sadly there is fewer and fewer new players joining the ranks because communities are becoming so fragmented.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Dec 22, 2015)

Bigkahuna said:


> New guy on the forum.. first post




Welcome to the forum!



> Interesting discussion reminiscent of a real life discussion I had recently about the same topic.  I know a number of groups who switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder and haven't even looked at 4e or 5e and appear to have no interest in it at all.  When I asked them why they basically told me that they had collected so many books and knew the system so intimately that switching at this point just seemed like far more of a hassle than it would be worth.




I think I should start calling this group the "Pathfounders." (Not meant to be derogatory.)



> I have been role-playing since I was 11 (40 now) and in all of those years I have never once met a person who randomly decided to play D&D by buying books off the shelf, gathering a group and just start playing.




*Raises hand*

Technically I had watched the cartoon, played the gold box computer games, and played some sort of unofficially "compatible with D&D" sort of choose your own adventure book that involved rolling dice. But as far as getting the actual game, I went searching for it. Found the old classic Red Box at a Toys R Us (I believe; it might have been another giant toy store that looked the same) when I was around the same age as you were when you started. But as far as contact with actual other players? Nope. I'm a self-starter like that.


----------



## Greenfield (Dec 22, 2015)

My own group is trying 5e now.  

I suspect that we won't switch systems though.  There's only one of us that seems to like the new rules.

That may change, but right now it's 5e itself that's keeping us from switching.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Dec 23, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Welcome to the forum!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was introduced to dnd red box by my mate at about 12 yrs old, he got his red box from his dad, who bought it for his birthday. Prior to that point, we had both enjoyed Fighting Fantasy game books and Choose your own adventure books (since about 8 or 9 years old, I think?).

The best thing that came out of 5e for me is that I went looking into the history of the game for more options.... and discovered the simple joy of OSR and 1e.


----------



## NotZenon (Dec 24, 2015)

I own all the editions, as well as a few OGL variants (trailblazer, pathfinder, castles and crusades, etc...)

I like all the editions, and i think 5th is probably my personal favourite, base on what i've read, but right now our whole group is playing 2nd ed.   The main reason is the people i am playing with have the 2nd edition books and have the best system mastery of that system.  They don't really want to learn a new system or buy new books. For me its been a bit of a challenge to DM it just in the sense that i keep confusing different rules from the different editions.  But it has been alot of fun to play with the old rules.


----------



## Mepher (Dec 31, 2015)

My group decided to try 5E this summer.  They played with a different DM and played through LMoP.  I didn't play.  This October I moved into my new house and resumed our normal gaming group every Sunday.  Because they had been playing 5E I decided to give it a go.  We played through about half of Horde of the Dragon Queen.  Honestly I hated every week.  I didn't look forward to running the game anymore.  Something about 5E just doesn't feel like D&D to me.  We took 3 weeks off gaming due to the holidays and told my players after the last session that I wasn't interested in running 5E anymore.  I am picking up our 2E campaign that we left off with back in the spring, before they tried 5E.

I really did want to like it.  I bought the 3 core books, all of the spell cards, Horde of the Dragon Queen, a couple 5E adventures, and even the Tome of Beasts Kickstarter.  The problem I had was just the feel of it to me.  I really don't understand how people can say it feels "old school" to them.  I know its all about how you run it but nothing about the mechanics give the old school feel.  To me D&D was challenging.  Casters had to manage their spells, parties had to explore with caution because healing was limited.  Backstabs were the exception, not the norm.  It just feels like 5E is the Monty Haul version of D&D.  Every player can do everything all the time.  Healing is trivial and with the buffed numbers challenge seems to go out the window after the first couple levels.  Yes, I know as a DM I can change all of that or I can house rule the game more to my liking but what's the point?  I don't like 5E's abundance of healing.  I don't like that class specific skills are minimized and anyone can do anything.  I hate cantrips and the fact that casters can just autofire firebolts every round.  Heck, in my games resources were important including light sources.  In my 5E game they are just popping light cantrips left and right to nullify any ill effects of darkness.  It just makes too much work for the DM when the players now seem to have an answer for everything.  With all the work I would need to do to make the game more like my beloved 2E, I might as well just play 2E.  The funniest part is that after my stint with 5E and my past weeks preparation for our 2E game this weekend, I even found myself reading my Moldvay Basic and 1E books again.  5E really made me appreciate it's roots that much more.  I know I am probably the exception rather than the rule these days, but it just wasn't for me.

My players were given the choice of someone else taking over the 5E reigns or switching back to 2E with me DMing.  They chose 2E.  Don't know if that is a reflection on the system or my Dming style but either way, 5E wasn't the overwhelming hit we had all hope for in my group.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Dec 31, 2015)

Mepher said:


> My group decided to try 5E this summer.  They played with a different DM and played through LMoP.  I didn't play.  This October I moved into my new house and resumed our normal gaming group every Sunday.  Because they had been playing 5E I decided to give it a go.  We played through about half of Horde of the Dragon Queen.  Honestly I hated every week.  I didn't look forward to running the game anymore.  Something about 5E just doesn't feel like D&D to me.  We took 3 weeks off gaming due to the holidays and told my players after the last session that I wasn't interested in running 5E anymore.  I am picking up our 2E campaign that we left off with back in the spring, before they tried 5E.
> 
> I really did want to like it.  I bought the 3 core books, all of the spell cards, Horde of the Dragon Queen, a couple 5E adventures, and even the Tome of Beasts Kickstarter.  The problem I had was just the feel of it to me.  I really don't understand how people can say it feels "old school" to them.  I know its all about how you run it but nothing about the mechanics give the old school feel.  To me D&D was challenging.  Casters had to manage their spells, parties had to explore with caution because healing was limited.  Backstabs were the exception, not the norm.  It just feels like 5E is the Monty Haul version of D&D.  Every player can do everything all the time.  Healing is trivial and with the buffed numbers challenge seems to go out the window after the first couple levels.  Yes, I know as a DM I can change all of that or I can house rule the game more to my liking but what's the point?  I don't like 5E's abundance of healing.  I don't like that class specific skills are minimized and anyone can do anything.  I hate cantrips and the fact that casters can just autofire firebolts every round.  Heck, in my games resources were important including light sources.  In my 5E game they are just popping light cantrips left and right to nullify any ill effects of darkness.  It just makes too much work for the DM when the players now seem to have an answer for everything.  With all the work I would need to do to make the game more like my beloved 2E, I might as well just play 2E.  The funniest part is that after my stint with 5E and my past weeks preparation for our 2E game this weekend, I even found myself reading my Moldvay Basic and 1E books again.  5E really made me appreciate it's roots that much more.  I know I am probably the exception rather than the rule these days, but it just wasn't for me.
> 
> My players were given the choice of someone else taking over the 5E reigns or switching back to 2E with me DMing.  They chose 2E.  Don't know if that is a reflection on the system or my Dming style but either way, 5E wasn't the overwhelming hit we had all hope for in my group.




Thanks for adding a different perspective!

I will say that one of the most difficult things for me in running my beloved 5e is keeping the balance of party power vs. believable challenges interacting properly.

5e characters are _powerful_ compared to most editions of the game. Sure, at 1st (and maybe at 2nd) level they are pretty squishy. But 3rd level feels like 5th level from 1e-3e as far as power level.

And most of the monsters--even classic ones that used to be scary challenges (including many undead) are now low CR creatures. Solo fights don't really work, so that means you need minions for your opponents. The difficult part is when minions don't make sense.

Take, say, the banshee. In 3e their CR was 17. I don't recall how strong they were in AD&D, but based on my recollection of other undead, I'm guessing they were pretty tough customers.

In 5e their CR is 4. That means a party of 4th-level characters should have no problem with them. A party of 3rd-level characters can probably also take them out, and a party of 2nd-level characters might even be able to pull it off with some losses.

So how am I supposed to use a banshee as a higher level threat? Either I can artificially inflate stats (which I hate), I can give her class levels (better, but I don't like it being a required modfication), add some minions that might even be more powerful than she is, and/or make it so that the actual confrontation with the banshee isn't the hard part--it's finding her and getting to that confrontation in the first place.

Now sure, this sort of thing isn't a problem if you don't mind being absurd and throwing a half dozen banshees instead of one at your mid to high level party--and my guess is that some DMs run their campaigns exactly like that. But for me, the world has to make sense. Rare sounding creatures are rare. Creatures that tend to be unique individuals rather than parts of groups generally are so.

I'm just not into the idea of using methods that strain suspension of disbelief to increase the challenges as the party advances. I prefer adventures that simply deal with more powerful foes in the way that makes sense for those foes. Since 5e downgraded the power level of so many foes (though granted, the stats make a lot of sense for many of them--and that is something I find to be a good thing), it makes it require a lot more creativity as a DM to give play-style satisfying challenges to higher level parties.

It still ends up that I like 5e the best, and am willing to creatively deal with that issue rather than the issues of the other editions.

As an aside, it doesn't sound like 5e is working for you, but for others who might like it but have problems with too much healing (I know I do), I'd recommend using both the Healer's Kit Dependency and Slow Natural Healing variants from the DMG. That generally means that a character who has used up all their health resources (including hit points and HD) will take 5 to 7 days to fully recover without magical healing. I'd also recommend changing the fighter's Second Wind to temporary hit points, and not let them activate it until they are at or below half hit points (since Second Wind is fine when everyone regains all hit points each morning, but is absurd when everyone else takes a week to recover). You might want to disallow or nerf the Healer feat also. Those rules should get you down to 3e non-magical healing levels or slightly less, which I find acceptable.


----------



## Mepher (Dec 31, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Thanks for adding a different perspective!
> 
> I will say that one of the most difficult things for me in running my beloved 5e is keeping the balance of party power vs. believable challenges interacting properly.
> 
> ...




I like your healing suggestions and I may try them out in the future.  I DO like what they wanted to do with 5E but I really hate the implementation.  I agree with you about the monsters in 5E and it was some of what I don't like about it.  They took the approach that with bounded accuracy you can just throw more creatures at them and still affect a higher level party.  I have seen people use monsters like kobolds as an example but to me it ruins the "feel" of the game to me.  Sure with the new rules you can throw a large group of kobolds at my level 10 fighter, overwhelm me, score hits and whittle my hit points down, but you basically just made my fighter into a pansy.  Nobody plays this game because they want to be high level kobold slayers.  They want to tell those stories about that time they ran into that banshee or that hill giant.....and lived.  Not the time they ran into those 12 banshees that killed them through attrition.

You are right, 5E doesn't work for me right now.  I may give it another try again in the future.  Of course when I sit down and start house ruling it, I might decide its just easier to stick with my beloved 1E/2E =)


----------



## Nibelung (Jan 1, 2016)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Take, say, the banshee. In 3e their CR was 17. I don't recall how strong they were in AD&D, but based on my recollection of other undead, I'm guessing they were pretty tough customers.
> 
> In 5e their CR is 4. That means a party of 4th-level characters should have no problem with them.




That is not exactly how CR works on 5e. This is 3e logic, but not 5e. 5e is based on XP budgets, with some extra multipliers added if you have more than one monster in the encounter, but the multiplier is for difficulty only, not for reward. 

...or something like that. I didn't read the 5e DMG. The point is that just because a monster is CR 4 do not mean it is a balanced encounter by itself against a level 4 group.


----------



## Mepher (Jan 1, 2016)

Actually in 5E a singe Wraith vs a group of 6 level 4 characters is considered an easy encounter.  2 Wraiths though ramps the difficulty up to Deadly.

You can use this tool here.  It looks nice but I really can't attest to its accuracy since I didn't find it until tonight.

http://kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder


----------



## Mepher (Jan 1, 2016)

Yeah never mind that tool.  I just tried throwing Kobolds in there.  I know first hand from my group that was going through HotDQ, a good number of Kobolds could take out the group.  According to that tool a Kobold encounter for the same sized group would be considered hard between 30 and 40 of them.  It takes 40 Kobolds to push that encounter into the deadly range.  I am calling shenanigans.  It still goes back to my original thoughts.....who really wants to be fighting Kobolds forever anyways.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jan 1, 2016)

Nibelung said:


> That is not exactly how CR works on 5e. This is 3e logic, but not 5e. 5e is based on XP budgets, with some extra multipliers added if you have more than one monster in the encounter, but the multiplier is for difficulty only, not for reward.
> 
> ...or something like that. I didn't read the 5e DMG. The point is that just because a monster is CR 4 do not mean it is a balanced encounter by itself against a level 4 group.




What it does mean is that the monster isn't too hard for you. It also means (from mine and other experiences, not necessarily what the books say) that a lower level party can often take it out. The only exception is at levels 1-2, where a CR 2 ogre (the example given) has a good chance of one-shot instakilling party members. Once you're level 2 or 3 that isn't an issue, and you can generally handle higher CR opponents fairly easily.

It is supposed to be a "must be this tall to fight" indicator, but in practice it doesn't really do that. If you are fighting a solo opponent, the CR is functionally equivalent to what it meant in 3e. It just doesn't work quite as well. Now that isn't a big problem for me, because I prefer to eyeball it once I have a grasp of how things work. The CR example was just to indicate the huge power downgrade of certain opponents.


----------



## Emerikol (Jan 4, 2016)

I ended up not switching.  My work situation took me away from my local area so I haven't had the energy to decide what version of D&D I really want to play.  I've considered C&C and Pathfinder depending on my desire for complexity.  I've also thought about making a game based upon the fudge/fate dice.

I was a 4e hater (the game not the people who played it) and I feel too much of the things I objected to in 4e made it into 5e.  Dissociative mechanics being a major one.   I'm very much about the players acting only as their characters.  I realize it's just a taste so I'm not downing anyone else.   That is just what I personally want.  So 5e didn't really lend itself really well to my style and I really had no expectation that the designers really even understood my concerns.  Some of their decisions (some!) would be so easy to rewrite as non-dissociative that not doing so must indicate they don't care or don't understand.


----------



## Greenfield (Jan 4, 2016)

My group just started our second 5e adventure.

It more or less re-enforced what I thought of the system.  As in, when this current run is done, I doubt I'll pick it up.

I will say that the the Forged Anvil character sheet, found her eon Enworld, is an exceptional piece of work, and I strongly applaud and appreciate all the work that went into it.  Well done.


----------



## Manorhouse_PR (Jan 23, 2016)

New here. 

I know me and my friend, both long-time DM who started in 2ed, didn't do the switch.
We loved the concept of 5ed, but it was poorly implemented in our opinion.
We tried it, but didn't like the fact that all classes seemed alike on level 1, and the "let's balance everything" mantra that was still there.
But some ideas and concepts inside it were/are pretty cool


----------



## Shades of Vengeance (Jan 24, 2016)

My group refuse to switch any further than 3.5e (and we ban Warlocks...) because of the horrible, horrible experiences with 4e. I tried to tell them that 5e is better than 4e, but to no avail...


----------



## Boneguard (Jan 24, 2016)

Around me, I'd say we have a fair mix and it depends on when we started: Most of us who are older and starter with Original D&D, BECMI, AD&D 1st or 2nd ed. pretty much stuck to those editions. I would say we are part of the 2nd category. We've tried 3.5 Ed, Pathfinder and 5th edition, but did not really find what we are looking for.

We have one or two in our gaming group who starter in earlier edition but who converted to either 3.5E, Pathfinder or 5E as their system of choose. But do enjoy earlier edition.

And we have a few players who started with more 3.5E or Pathfinder who has either stuck to their system or switched to 5E finding it more streamlined.


----------



## Big J Money (Jan 25, 2016)

I"m not buying 5th, but I don't fall into any of the 3 categories mentioned.

But I'm also not a fan of TSR's (and by virtue, WoTC's) D&D.  I'm more a fan of Arneson/Gygax's original game and the games of my own that I can make from it.  I highly doubt WotC would ever publish another edition aimed at me; it probably wouldn't be profitable anyway.  If they would come up with interesting new Campaign sourcebooks I would buy them.  But they're mired in TSR's past, when it comes to fictional creativity.

Looking back, I suppose the only reason I bought 3rd and 4th edition was to end up learning this lesson.  I think 4th edition is an interesting mini's squad combat game with some RP potential, but not a game I like enough to make time for.


----------



## Lwaxy (Jan 26, 2016)

We were mostly disappointed with the way magic had been nerfed, most other things are fine about 5e. Still, we could simply house rule this - it's not like we don't have a gazillion house rules for 3.5/PF already. Also,too many things we didn't like in 4e are clearly visible in 5e. 

But the main thing is, we have sooo many books 3.5/PF compatible, and it makes no sense to spend more money on new stuff. We did get the core books and some adventures though, the latter you can use with any version and the former is a collector's thing


----------



## tyrlaan (Jan 26, 2016)

My wife and I haven't switched.

I bought the PHB and DMG (unfortunately, considering the cost), and we tried playing it for a while but it definitely was a poor experience for us. 

Fundamentally, I think it's easiest to sum up why we didn't like it by saying "it's not 4e". 
 - I've grown to like 'crunchy' combat where I have a decent amount of options on hand each fight. In comparison, I found 5e combat to be flat and somewhat boring, especially if your abilities don't come back until a long rest.
 - I dislike 5e's return to long spell descriptions.
 - I like all classes being relatively on par with one another and dislike what appears to be the return of the fighter-mage disparity.
 - I really like the simplicity of monster building, heck DMing, in 4e. Easily the lowest prep time I've ever had. Maybe I could get similar results in time with 5e, but since it has other strikes against it already, my motivation to invest the time is not there.

Incidentally, I find it an interesting testament to the variance in taste from one gamer to another that I would argue there isn't enough 4e in 5e, yet  [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]'s dislike of 5e stems from having too much 4e in it.


----------



## Starfox (Jan 26, 2016)

tyrlaan said:


> Incidentally, I find it an interesting testament to the variance in taste from one gamer to another that I would argue there isn't enough 4e in 5e, yet @Emerikol's dislike of 5e stems from having too much 4e in it.




Win-Win! To each their own.

But the idea of "one game to rule them all" has all but died. At a game con in the '80s, you won the con if you won the DnD tournament. That hasn't been true here in Sweden for over 30 years now. It had a certain charm, but I find the current rich choices much more satisfying overall.


----------



## Brenthias (Feb 8, 2016)

4e was and has been my only D&D experience. I have been with the same group for roughly four years and can say I have enjoyed every bit of it. As for not trying out 5e yet, we haven't had a reason to depart from 4e. We have finished one campaign to level 30 and have started anew. I have myself looked at some of the 5e books and was intrigued and the "less crunchy" combat, but in the end it was a fleeting feeling. To sum things up, I personally am enjoying myself and I am not inclined to change as of now.


----------

