Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillyquiet | Hacker News Reader

This was briefly not true during the 4th edition years. A LOT of people moved to Pathfinder as a kind of 3.75th edition, rather than picking up 4th edition.

It was only when 5th edition came out and it became popularized in the mainstream that WotC regained its seeming ascendency.

And I get it, 5th edition is much more streamlined and accessible than its predecessors (not that they were Fate-level challenging or anything).

Tangentially, I think 4th edition and now 5th edition lost a lot of the creative soul of earlier editions - the lore is much more heavily integrated with the rule set and feels a lot more prescriptive. but that could just be nostalgic bias as I grew up with 2ed.

View on HN

Strange; I grew up with 3rd and I have the impression that 5th is much less prescriptive than its predecessor (I'm ignoring 4th entirely as an anomaly; I never played more than two sessions of it so I don't have any insight about it). 3rd had oodles of rules, prestige classes, feats, etc. whereas 5th to me has more of a "make stuff up for flavor" intent behind it. I think this is a direct result of 5th edition's focus on streamlining.

This could be because I was involved with Living Greyhawk in 3rd edition, which was by its nature bound pretty strictly to RAW; or because I came into 5th edition when it was brand new and rules-barren. But I feel like they lifted a lot of restrictions in 5th edition. Example: alignment restrictions on classes. These days I don't even play with alignments at all, but the chaotic good paladin of freedom that I rolled in 5th edition would explicitly contradict the 3rd edition rules. And spells that used to interact with alignments have now been rewritten to target more objective things like creature type instead.

Personally I like 5e, but I know what you mean.

I think part of it is just us getting older. DnD is one thing when you’re a bunch of 12 year olds eating cheetos in a basement, and it’s something else when you’re a bunch of 30-somethings with families and jobs carving 4 hours out of a Sunday afternoon. It helps to have a more well-defined and approachable game.

That said, the 5e material does feel much more narrowly focused on creating “adventures” rather than creating a world. Like the 3e books had rules for buying a castle and hiring guards for it. Even if no one really did that, just its presence in the book indicated possibilities outside of “run this printed campaign set in the forgotten realms”.

> Like the 3e books had rules for buying a castle and hiring guards for it. Even if no one really did that, just its presence in the book indicated possibilities outside of “run this printed campaign set in the forgotten realms”.

3e was the first open core version (and the first version designed from the ground up at WotC, rather than pre-WotC TSR), and WotC learned a lot about the first/third-part split and what worked well in core/supplement split between 3e and 5e.

What they had for this in the core in 3e wasn’t really adequate for people who wanted rules for it (and there was a first-party supplement for it). By 5e, this kind of subsystem isn’t the kind of thing that they really do much in first-party supplements, but there is prominent third-party support leveraging the open-core nature of 5e (a feature it shares with 3e):

https://shop.mcdmproductions.com/products/strongholds-follow...

That’s a good point about the 1st/3rd part split, I hadn’t really considered that.

I know that it’s not that you can’t buy a castle in 5e, and a big part of the game is grokking that the rules aren’t a list of what you can do, but how. But finding that section of the book as a kid was a real imagination kickstarter. Having it in there was just fun, even if the actual rule was clumsy and would’ve been better as a fleshed out supplement.

I really am a fan of 5e, and have been having a lot of fun running it. I wouldn’t go back to 3e (or AD&D for that matter, which was a little bit before my time), but the kitchen sink approach in 3e had a kind of charm that I could see people missing in the new, more coherent material.

I still enjoy reading my 1E Wilderness and Dungeoneer's Survival Guide books once a decade or so :)

> the 5e material does feel much more narrowly focused on creating “adventures” rather than creating a world.

I have the same feeling; I had it with 4e as well. I can see why, given that the target audience is much wider and, as you point out, often has much tighter time constraints. I can't even begin to estimate how many hours I spent as a teenager doing world building for our D&D campaign (which started with 1st Edition Advanced D&D), hours I couldn't possibly spend today.

Yeah, I feel like the creators have already created the world for you and are just giving you a rule set to have adventures in that world. Which, like you mention, is fine.

I hear you, I grew up playing 2nd edition, and somehow the 5th stuff started off feeling empty for me, though I have to admit the rules are so much better and rolling is so much easier. Pathfinder is like doing math homework, every roll...

5th is finally starting to get some better flavor, however, now taht 3rd parties, and WotC seem to be filling in the gaps. Goodman Games has a line of reissued classic adventures, like Castle Amder and Barrier Peaks, and these books are fabulous. They're updated for 5e, so they offer that old school charm in 5e rules.

Additionally, 5e has so little in the way of specializations and customizations for characters, but that's being cleared up in the newest official D&D book, Tasha's Caldron of Everything. It's got a bunch of specialized subclasses, like the Bladesinger, and a lot of more flavorful text and items to go with your campaigns.

I feel like 5e started off kinda bland, but has been becoming significantly more fleshed out and living over time. And that makes sense: it takes time to add to these worlds.

Oh, also, Kobold Press' Tome of Beasts 1 & 2 are also fantastic 5e books. Great monsters.

I can't put my finger on why I dislike 5e, other just having a "corporate polish". Maybe the rules are too articulated, over-specified, or maybe it's just too clean and modern.

In any case, Dungeon Crawl Classics[1] is like a mainlining RPG nostalgia. It's the one product that put me in the back of the bus with my 4th grade buddies working their way through the Caves of Chaos. The art, rules and just general vibe are so Old School metal, you can practically hear Zeppelin playing in the background.

Magic is uncertain and rare, and death in DCC is the natural result of real danger. Encounters are not gradually scaled to fit the current Challenge Rating of the party. Can't say enough about how much fun this game is. Great community too.

[1] https://goodman-games.com/dungeon-crawl-classics-rpg/

> I can't put my finger on why I dislike 5e, other just having a "corporate polish". Maybe the rules are too articulated, over-specified, or maybe it's just too clean and modern.

IMO 5e isn't engaging in the right ways -- characters, and combat, become the primary context everything revolves around, and the dungeon itself falls to the wayside. Both because it's fairly easy, and encourages the DM to not kill you (even subtly, like the absurdly time-consuming character generation), so there's little reason to see the dungeon itself as a threat, and a tool. Skills get so minutely defined that even if you have a novel strategy, your character background strongly defines whether you can execute it (to the point that it's much easier to fall into standard patterns, and the dungeon is so nonthreatening that you can continue to do so indefinitely).

There's simply too little freedom and leeway in how you approach things, defining so many rules and contexts its not worth the trouble to continuously do novel things, but at the same time so expansive that it takes ages to get anything done. And the rules largely slow down the most uninteresting parts of the game -- standard combat, basic activities (leaping caverns and such), standard communication with NPCs, etc.

I mean its slow. The ruleset is fundamentally and ridiculously slow.

> the absurdly time-consuming character generation

Pick a target background, race, and class, and race, spend a few seconds rolling or assigning stats, pick a handful of options from your race, class, and background, and maybe buy a little custom gear (though the default for class and background often has you covered).

5e chargen is usually lightning fast, even with a non-first-level start, unless you are creating your character by doing something like original optimized level 20 theorycraft. Which is probably a waste of time, even if you are dedicated to min/maxing, because someone's probably done the theorycraft you want online and you can just look it up.

I think lethality is extremely DM dependent and it's hard to generalise across different games.

The DM my group plays with has no issue killing off PCs, we're level 4 and have had 3 deaths across our party of 4 so far. (Two for the same player!).

My group gave up on 5e because it (subjective) felt like the PCs were overpowered early on (especially the healing rules). It's a different style of play for people who came out of AD&D or who took to the OSR style games.

DCC, which I've been playing and running for a while, is lethal in comparison. Which is a mark against it for many people, but my group loves it. We don't have a death a week, but we had several deaths over the past year. The threat changes the play style versus what we saw with 5e where it just felt like PCs couldn't die unless the DM went out of their way to create an excessive challenge that bordered on a forced TPK scenario.

>My group gave up on 5e because it (subjective) felt like the PCs were overpowered early on (especially the healing rules).

You might just be too good at the game for usually appropriate encounters. My group's having a blast, and we've come to rely on all that healing to push our luck: jumping into more dangerous encounters, building our characters more for story and less for optimization, being able to play even when two of the five can't make it (usually the healer). If imagine newer players also need that healing, even when they're trying their hardest.

That's not to say you're wrong for not liking 5e. If it's too easy for you, then it's too easy. You could try to account for that by using tougher or more monsters, but that makes balancing encounters harder for the DM.

I played a lot of 1e and a bit of 2e. I've kept up a bit with newer rulesets but have never played. Comments like this make me wonder just how different 5e is from that era. I can't imagine ever thinking players were "too good at the game" to create a situation like this.

That's not to say the current situation is bad but it definitely sounds very different

> My group gave up on 5e because it (subjective) felt like the PCs were overpowered early on (especially the healing rules).

Well, compared to the “classic” versions (through, oh, AD&D/2e), 5e’s handling of cantrips and assignment of hit dice to classes make the primary casters more active and less like eggshells at low levels, and healing outside of “healer” character abilities is much more generous by default (but there is also, in the books, a simple option that makes it grittier reverses all of that except the not-eggshells parts, by increasing the time for “short rests” and “long rests” which are key for both healing and spell recovery.) Also, I feel like lots of tables by people who come from older versions underuse exhaustion.

People do ignore encumbrance/exhaustion a lot, kind of annoys me when I have to remind my players: You can't carry a battle axe, longsword, longbow, crossbow, two fishing nets, and a boulder. I don't care that you have 18 strength and it's technically something you can lift, it makes no sense to be able to run with all of that, let alone expecting to keep up with unencumbered opponent.

But this is one of the great things of this hobby:

1. There are thousands of systems to select from.

2. No one forces you to play it RAW.

3. If you do want RAW, you can probably find a system that works for you.

The most important parts are: what's fun and conveys the sense you want for the game; agreeing on the rules (either RAW or house) with some consistency (What do you mean I can't jump down 10'? You let him jump off a 50' cliff without getting hurt just last week!).

Yeah, and I have no problem with people using what they want and ignoring what they want at their tables. I just think that a lot of the people who complain that 5e boosts PC power more than they like are underusing new core features and options that counter that effect, and in the core exhaustion seems to be a common piece that gets overlooked or underused (avoiding encumbrance has been common, AFAICT, from the earliest days of D&D, and I don’t think 5e substantially alters the impact of ignoring that.)

Another thing that I think takes a little getting used to coming from 3rd (or Pathfinder) to 5th is the idea of bounded accuracy:

https://olddungeonmaster.com/2014/08/30/bounded-accuracy/

The TL;DR is that AC/attack bonuses/saving throws/save DCs used to scale a lot more than they do now. The upshot of this change as a DM is that you can plan out encounters differently. Feel like your first-level characters aren't getting enough of a workout? Throw a CR 3 or 4 encounter at them. I ran Curse of Strahd as my very first 5th Edition campaign, and there was an encounter at the end of the early section where I'm like, they already lost one character earlier in the dungeon, this is a straight-up TPK. But they handled it fine, although they used about a day's worth of abilities/spells that recharge with a long rest in a single encounter. That's where I started to get a much better feel for how encounter balance works in 5e.

> My group gave up on 5e because it (subjective) felt like the PCs were overpowered early on (especially the healing rules).

I felt the same way about 4e: overpowered early on, but underpowered (compared to earlier editions) at higher levels. It basically felt like playing a party of 30th-level characters wasn't all that different from playing a party of 1st-level characters.

> it (subjective) felt like the PCs were overpowered early on

I think that's it: the stakes are too low. You don't have to ration your spells, there are few constraints, and your investment in your character is so great it's customer abuse to write them out of the story. Which is not say I don't get attached to my DCC guys.

> your investment in your character is so great it's customer abuse to write them out of the story

This is the biggest issue I've run into with some individuals/groups, and one thing DCC really helped with (for them). Character creation in DCC take about 5 minutes, if that. 6x3d6, assign to stats in order, roll on a few more tables, spend your starting coin, ok let's go. It got several people over their hatred/fear of PC death even in our non-DCC games. I'm starting up a Call of Cthulhu game (which is very rough on PC health, both physical and mental) and there's more effort needed to create characters and much more invested in each character, but now that their fear is gone the game should be more enjoyable. Even with the possibility of characters disappearing in the night or losing their minds and becoming useless.

I think part of it is the corporate nature of the owners of D&D now, and part of it is that the D&D 1st and 2nd editions and to a lesser extent the 3rd edition, were designed to appeal to the sensibilities and tastes of the Dave Arnesons and Gary Gygaxes of the world, i.e., middle-class western European or North American, mostly white and mostly male nerds.

The later editions have much more general audiences from much different generations than those early ones, and so the game changes - and that's not a bad thing. Buuuut, combine that with the impetus of a corporation to make their product sanitary and palatable to that wide range of tastes, you end up with something bland and inoffensive.

edit: none of that is to say that I think 5ed is a bad game, it's not, it's just different in kind and in philosophy to the earlier editions.

Just to be clear, I don't think 5e is a bad product, it's just not for me. My friend's kids are all into it, and in forty years they'll probably be griping about whatever new fangled trash 10e has become.

mathfinder

> Tangentially, I think 4th edition and now 5th edition lost a lot of the creative soul of earlier editions - the lore is much more heavily integrated with the rule set and feels a lot more prescriptive. but that could just be nostalgic bias as I grew up with 2ed.

I think that’s true in a superficial way that helps people new to it get into it, but I also think the core is more streamlined and easily adaptable than the earlier versions (particularly the pre-3e versions), and there’s quite a diversity of different-setting-and-flavor options in the core (primarily, in the DMG), and a good diversity of both generic tools and specific built settings and reusable setting elements, both first- and third-party, so even if the core doesn’t push as hard for “build it yourself”, the support for that is as good as earlier editions.

WotC has been dead to me since 4.0. I stayed on 3.5 and switched to Pathfinder for some new games.

I don't particularly want to learn 5.0, but I'm feeling I might be forced to if I want to join/start any current games...

As someone who played and liked BECMI, AD&D/1e, AD&D/2e, D&D/3e, D&D/3.5e – and thought each had their strong and weak points, and wouldn’t mind playing any of them again though the gratuitous mechanical complexity of AD&D/1e is a bit over the top – but rejected 4e, I find that 5e is (while incorporating and furthering in some areas the mechanical simplifications of 4e) much more in the spirit of the pre-4e versions than it is like 4e, and it fairly quickly became my clear favorite version.

One of the awesome things about published content is that you are never forced to do anything if you can form your own group. And even then, there are lots of people in many cities and online willing to play just about any system out there.

My friends and I still play AD&D (run by a couple of the guys), or OSR systems if run by myself and the other guys. I've played 5e and 4e, but never felt like it was forced on me, because, you know, I own books for other systems and so do my friends. And since I didn't enjoy 4e, I just dropped that game. I haven't played 5e since the playtest days, but with OSR systems out there that already covered the same terrain, it held no appeal to me or my group.

Yeah - and I get the impression that 5.0 isn't anything like 4.0, so maybe it wouldn't be as unpleasant as I've been fearing. I had been with two very long-lasting gaming groups (~35 years each) which both dissolved in the last couple of years, so maybe it's time to modernize.

D&D 5e basically acts like 4th Edition never existed, and you will find it very familiar as someone who ahs played 3rd Edition.

Mechanically at its core, 5e is has a very close similarity to 4e with encounter powers becoming recharge on short or long rest and daily powers becoming recharge on long rest, and a few similar translations; it's much closer to 4e in that regard than to any earlier edition. And the catalog of classes, and other options, and their design doesn't throw out 4e heritage entirely, either.

But it manages to avoid, IMO, the super-metagamey feel of 4e.

I get where you're coming from here, but the basic crunch of it is delivered on a 3rd Edition base. If you look at a 4th Edition Wizard, they have at-will, encounter and daily powers, just like any other 4e class. If you look at a 5th Edition wizard, they have... spells, broken down by spell level, in a way that feels very familiar to 3rd Edition players. Some of the spells feel like they haven't changed at all from 3rd Edition.

Here's 3.5th Edition magic missile: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicMissile.htm

Here's the same spell in 5th Edition: http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicMissile.htm

Very similar. The 5th Edition version is a bit simpler to read/understand, but frankly if you sit there at the table and think you're casting the 3rd Edition magic missile you will get it right 8 times out of 10.

And then on page 20 of this quickstart rules, you can see the 4e magic missile, which is a very different spell altogether: https://issuu.com/biggerstaffhosting/docs/quickstartrules

Reply on news.ycombinator.com