| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| roninshadow |
Posted - 17 Feb 2019 : 12:43:03
hello everybody
retired 3.5 edition player but still enjoy reading topics in here.
i am just wondering what people think of the 5th edition? was it worth the change? was many of the problems with the 4th edition fixed?
like to hear some thoughts on this
thank you |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Gelcur |
Posted - 20 Feb 2019 : 18:16:12
I really think every edition comes down to how the DM runs it and what directions he points his players in. I, like others, have a lot invested in previous edition rule books so I focus on buying adventures or settings books that might be "useful", easy to backport or for ideas to steal. The edition you know backwards/forwards/upside-down is also the easiest to often run. As many have said, and it is my feeling too, 5E is the easiest to pick up especially for new players.
I personally love character creation as much as playing a character or DMing a quest. So 3.5E lets me have the most fun, I jot down fun character ideas in a notepad and when I'm feeling creative I try to stat them out. Often I ignore Class/PrC/Feat names just trying to get the right feel. Oddly for me it is a weird give and take, the fluff idea leads to interesting crunch mechanics which leads to background, back and forth sort of weaving an interesting tapestry. When I do get a chance to game, players and DM agree on a power level so things don't get out of hand. I also find power level an interesting mechanic as it relates to RP, the country bumpkin who became a fighter isn't the min/max type but the pupil of the master swordsman who was raised to slay the great evil probably is.
At some point I will share the "Epic level" rogue, , that I've been working on for 2 years. Why 2 years? Well he has a business rivaling Aurora's, he has a Griffon Cohort/Mount, he has a Dragon Cohort who has a Cohort, and on it goes.
Remember the important thing is to have fun. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 20 Feb 2019 : 14:14:09
Like I suggested before, I think 5E is way more balanced than any edition except maybe 4E (which was way to mechanical for my taste). While there aren't quite as many options as in 3E, there are easily more options than in 1E or 2E. And I'd argue the difference between most of the options missing from 3E is minor or mostly fluff (which can be added by anyone or done with minor reskinning). There are a few products on DMs Guild that have tried to capture some of the missing FR or generic options, like mine or Jeremy Forbing's stuff, but most of the options are actually already there. I disagree that multiclass spellcasting is broken. I think it works fine in play and I think works better than previous editions. I agree Epic play is a weakness, but it always has been. That said, I would love to see more spells and magic items and monsters and, and, and, but its a solid game that doesn't get you into hours long fights or bog you down in endless rules for minutiae or endless math from multiple sources like 4E and 3E often did or but allows for more options, more balance, and clearer rules than 1E and 2E. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 20 Feb 2019 : 02:37:02
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yep, and noone in their right mind would use all their spell slots on animate dead.
I mean if you want a sizable army of undead troops at your beckon call, that all act on the same turn as you, that can deal considerable amounts of damage then you probably would spend that much resources. You do still get 1st and 2nd level slots that are completely free, lol. Thing is, a venture like this requires significant investment, as it should. Someone shouldn't be able to just cast a half-dozen spells and get the same amount or more powerful amounts.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Agreed on the epic being a mess. However, 5e doesn't allow for a mage to do some SIMPLE things that they would have been able to do in earlier editions like having multiple defensive spells up at once, due to the need for concentration in 5e.
Maybe we've had different experiences with previous editions, but I see this as an absolute god-send. In 3e I was able, with no homebrew or crazy shenanigans, cast Haste, Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, and Bull Strength on not only myself but 4 other willing characters at the table for a battle.....AS A SWIFT ACTION. Not only that but said wizard (gray elf wizard 5/ Warweaver 5 [Arcane Disciple-Healing]) that also allowed me to channel Cure Wounds spells into the Weave and get a mass effect from them.
If anything, the Concentration mechanic was devised to prevent exactly what people really want, God-Wizards. I'm glad they're gone. I'm glad a wizard isn't flying around with stoneskin, Mage Armor, Shield, shooting scorching rays and magic missile all battle that basically require DMs to invoke AMF's on a near-constant basis to deal with the crazy antics. I hated DM'ing high-level 3.5 for exactly that reason and why I likely never will.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Now, I'm not arguing that "concentration has to go away". I think its a great addition. However, there should be a possible ruleset to allow a wizard to be "special" wherein HE might be able to concentrate on multiple spells. Meanwhile, another wizard might gear himself up for defense via contingencies and have some new 5e mechanisms for having multiple contingent affects instead of multiple concentration. Another wizard might use some rules to make multiple spells longer lasting (i.e. a shield spell that lasts all day) on his/her person to create a personal mantle of protection at all times. Other wizards may go for offense instead of defense. Others may go more for versatility in having more spells readily available. Others may go for options to somehow get more spell slots. Not all of these should be available to all wizards, but they should be options.
And you'd likely run this risk of this class becoming nigh invincible again. If a Wizard gets some gimmick that allows for Multi-concentration spells then what's the Fighter getting? Or the Rogue? Or the Barbarian? See when developers start making rules that allow a percentage of classes to break or bend established balance rules, they start setting a bad precedent, especially when they don't go all the way and include similar things for everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I know you know this Diffan, since I know you're a ruleset person as much as me, but I just felt like mentioning some of the drawbacks in more particular detail to help the original poster understand why people may be saying some of the things they're saying in generalities.
I get that, it adds context. I'm not saying D&D 5E is 'teh BEST', I'm saying that I feel it's a very strong system that allows for a lot of flexibility. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Feb 2019 : 18:38:08
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The problems I see is that 5e has the idea of minimizing the rules, but not the flexibility in that there's no options. The idea of advantage is GREAT, BUT there should be some options for minor bonuses. Playing a necromancer that has undead pets is a serious power down in 5e, and similar can be said for a lot of the other options, such that some of the old storylines become basically unbelievable if you use 5e rules. This is why I both like 5e and dread it. It has a lot of promise, but not a lot of care and feeding to improve on what its missing. That being said, the DMs Guild has some people who have come up with some interesting options.
So I was checking out GitP post about the amount of undead lne could make at 20th level. Here's the results:
1 mummy lord
5 wights
10 ghouls
60 zombies (controlled by wights)
146 skeletons or zombies (56 of which are controlled by the mummy lord)
plus 1 zombie per day as you cast finger of death over and over and over
plus if you have a cool DM you may have a Crawling Claw as your familiar and a Flaming Skull back at the library protecting your secrets.
That is, however, using all 3rd thru 9th level spells to cast animate undead. Sure it's not very versatile but I think it certainly would give a player the feeling of Undead Army pretty easily.
Looking at the Mystic and their approach to Psionics, I really don't think it's that bad or broken. There was someone on DMguild that did a revision of the classes and powers and made good changes to it. I drew up a Soul Knife character and it was basically on-par with similar styled characters in terms of AC, attacks, and versatility. I think some small pooish and it's not long before Psionics are in 5e officially.
As for the other missing things, I'm just going to come out and say "Good". Epic rules in 3e are a mess. As if the rocket-tag aspect of high-level 3e wasnt bad enough, adding more rules and mechanics at it simply exacerbates the problems further. Same with putting Stats to Gods. Just.....no thanks.
The level of customization in 5e is actually fairly decent. It uses the 3e multiclass system for the most part but gives a bit more to the classes that go dual-casting. Granted it better effects 1/2 casting classes like the Paladin or Ranger than it does a Cleric/Wizard but you're still getting access to 7th thru 9th level slots to plug lower levels spells into (with enhanced effects). To me this actually rewards players who see their class thru 20 levels vs min/max munchkins of 3.5 era. Then there are really cool and good combos like the Sorcadin (Paladin/Sorcerer) that can fuel smite attacks with sorcerer spell slots! Knight of the Mystic Fire indeed!
Yep, and noone in their right mind would use all their spell slots on animate dead.
Agreed on the epic being a mess. However, 5e doesn't allow for a mage to do some SIMPLE things that they would have been able to do in earlier editions like having multiple defensive spells up at once, due to the need for concentration in 5e. Now, I'm not arguing that "concentration has to go away". I think its a great addition. However, there should be a possible ruleset to allow a wizard to be "special" wherein HE might be able to concentrate on multiple spells. Meanwhile, another wizard might gear himself up for defense via contingencies and have some new 5e mechanisms for having multiple contingent affects instead of multiple concentration. Another wizard might use some rules to make multiple spells longer lasting (i.e. a shield spell that lasts all day) on his/her person to create a personal mantle of protection at all times. Other wizards may go for offense instead of defense. Others may go more for versatility in having more spells readily available. Others may go for options to somehow get more spell slots. Not all of these should be available to all wizards, but they should be options. I know you know this Diffan, since I know you're a ruleset person as much as me, but I just felt like mentioning some of the drawbacks in more particular detail to help the original poster understand why people may be saying some of the things they're saying in generalities. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Feb 2019 : 09:59:55
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Those descriptions could also apply to 2E or 3E. So if you're already playing 2E/3E then what advantage is gained by playing 5E?
Current, readily available rulebooks that match the new products coming out from various game companies?
That would probably be more compelling if D&D 5E had a release schedule which was any better than utterly glacial. I think they've managed one sourcebook a year.
Note that I said "various game companies" and didn't limit it to just WotC. Kobold Press, for example, is putting out stuff for 5E. |
| Scots Dragon |
Posted - 19 Feb 2019 : 09:04:25
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Those descriptions could also apply to 2E or 3E. So if you're already playing 2E/3E then what advantage is gained by playing 5E?
Current, readily available rulebooks that match the new products coming out from various game companies?
That would probably be more compelling if D&D 5E had a release schedule which was any better than utterly glacial. I think they've managed one sourcebook a year. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Feb 2019 : 05:15:21
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The problems I see is that 5e has the idea of minimizing the rules, but not the flexibility in that there's no options. The idea of advantage is GREAT, BUT there should be some options for minor bonuses. Playing a necromancer that has undead pets is a serious power down in 5e, and similar can be said for a lot of the other options, such that some of the old storylines become basically unbelievable if you use 5e rules. This is why I both like 5e and dread it. It has a lot of promise, but not a lot of care and feeding to improve on what its missing. That being said, the DMs Guild has some people who have come up with some interesting options.
So I was checking out GitP post about the amount of undead lne could make at 20th level. Here's the results:
1 mummy lord
5 wights
10 ghouls
60 zombies (controlled by wights)
146 skeletons or zombies (56 of which are controlled by the mummy lord)
plus 1 zombie per day as you cast finger of death over and over and over
plus if you have a cool DM you may have a Crawling Claw as your familiar and a Flaming Skull back at the library protecting your secrets.
That is, however, using all 3rd thru 9th level spells to cast animate undead. Sure it's not very versatile but I think it certainly would give a player the feeling of Undead Army pretty easily.
Looking at the Mystic and their approach to Psionics, I really don't think it's that bad or broken. There was someone on DMguild that did a revision of the classes and powers and made good changes to it. I drew up a Soul Knife character and it was basically on-par with similar styled characters in terms of AC, attacks, and versatility. I think some small pooish and it's not long before Psionics are in 5e officially.
As for the other missing things, I'm just going to come out and say "Good". Epic rules in 3e are a mess. As if the rocket-tag aspect of high-level 3e wasnt bad enough, adding more rules and mechanics at it simply exacerbates the problems further. Same with putting Stats to Gods. Just.....no thanks.
The level of customization in 5e is actually fairly decent. It uses the 3e multiclass system for the most part but gives a bit more to the classes that go dual-casting. Granted it better effects 1/2 casting classes like the Paladin or Ranger than it does a Cleric/Wizard but you're still getting access to 7th thru 9th level slots to plug lower levels spells into (with enhanced effects). To me this actually rewards players who see their class thru 20 levels vs min/max munchkins of 3.5 era. Then there are really cool and good combos like the Sorcadin (Paladin/Sorcerer) that can fuel smite attacks with sorcerer spell slots! Knight of the Mystic Fire indeed! |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Feb 2019 : 03:23:59
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
So 5E does some things well, some things really well, some other things not very well at all. It even has some specifics which seem somewhat unbalanced, unfinished, or broken - or maybe not quite so much yet they're evidently still not appealing to everybody.
Those descriptions could also apply to 2E or 3E. So if you're already playing 2E/3E then what advantage is gained by playing 5E?
The problems I see with 2e is that its WAAYYY broken if you've got any kind of creative mind for spellcasting. Some of the shit I figured out in 2e... I actually created a villain who wasn't unbelievable, but yet after I figured out what defenses to use, I literally saw few ways to affect him. 3.5e came along and fixed a lot of those problems, but from my viewpoint, it becomes broken at the upper levels (near epic and above), and possibly earlier if you don't control the min/max of multiple bonusing. Plus it turned into nickel and dime bonuses everywhere you turned, so keeping track of what you actually needed to roll got hairy.
The problems I see is that 5e has the idea of minimizing the rules, but not the flexibility in that there's no options. The idea of advantage is GREAT, BUT there should be some options for minor bonuses. Playing a necromancer that has undead pets is a serious power down in 5e, and similar can be said for a lot of the other options, such that some of the old storylines become basically unbelievable if you use 5e rules. This is why I both like 5e and dread it. It has a lot of promise, but not a lot of care and feeding to improve on what its missing. That being said, the DMs Guild has some people who have come up with some interesting options. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Feb 2019 : 03:12:06
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Those descriptions could also apply to 2E or 3E. So if you're already playing 2E/3E then what advantage is gained by playing 5E?
Current, readily available rulebooks that match the new products coming out from various game companies?
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Feb 2019 : 00:46:39
So 5E does some things well, some things really well, some other things not very well at all. It even has some specifics which seem somewhat unbalanced, unfinished, or broken - or maybe not quite so much yet they're evidently still not appealing to everybody.
Those descriptions could also apply to 2E or 3E. So if you're already playing 2E/3E then what advantage is gained by playing 5E? |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 22:46:53
5e has the right concept. It needs tweaking, in that the number progression is maybe a little TOO small now (i.e. from +1 to +20 in 3.5 to +2 to +6 now). Its multi-classing for spellcasters does suck. Its lack of a complete spell list does suck. Basically, they've started down the right road, and they stopped. It needs a LOT of extra rules that aren't even remotely tested if you want to approach anything like the stuff you could do in 2e or 3.5e. The problem comes back to return on investment, and I'm not sure they want to invest. I honestly think they could make the money if they'd put out the product. However, I think 4e shocked the hell out of them when we all basically threw our hands up and turned to a competitor. I'm honestly surprised though that Pathfinder is coming out with a new edition, and they seemingly didn't learn from some of the things 5e did that are right (like lowering the number progression) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 19:45:50
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
There are currently no epic-level or officially-released psionics rules,
The lack of psionics is likely a good thing!
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of psionics... But D&D has a habit of treating psionics as an after-the-fact bolt-on, without integrating it into the core rules. It's usually been a rough fit, and generally doesn't get anything more than token support after that.
The Dark Sun setting was one of the few exceptions, and I think it's because they took the time to build the setting around psionics, to make sure it all fit together, instead of their usual approach of slapping on something that looks like but isn't quite magic. |
| Dewaint |
Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 15:02:41
I think that most published FR lore in 5e is focused on "The North" area.
SCAG and SKT both have probably the greatest chunks of 5e FR lore currently available from a more general perspective.
Many of of the adventures have lore included as far as it is needed for adventure's background, etc.
Speaking about 5e:
Guess if someone is playing on a frequent basis .. let's say once or twice a week, will possibly get bored by the neat and short 5e rules sooner or later and more fond of 3.x/PF 'cause of the vast amount of options and maths-supported character customization.
IMO 5E gives DM and players alike to possiblility to have a more "lightweighted" game experience, without the burden to keep in mind tons of rules, exception, more options, or concatenated feats.
Groups playing occasionally - for whatever reasons not able to play more often nor able to let the game go ;) Let's say once every 6 weeks, pausing during holiday season, might experience hard times to remember the exact rules or location of such rules. Endanger game fun by delving into endless discussions, DMs house ruling this time that way, essentially trying to move forward the game; and maybe next time the other way 'cause he's desperately digging in his notes and pressed to make decisions.
I admit it might sound like a constructed situation, but maybe one or the other knows what am talking about. 
Depending on the sort of game you prefer I believe both variants might coexist extremely well, players able to choose the one or other style. |
| Scots Dragon |
Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 14:10:32
Ultimately D&D 5e on its own is a harmless game, though it's missing several features that are fairly common to the Forgotten Realms. There are currently no epic-level or officially-released psionics rules, and there are no stats for literally any dragon type outside of the core ten and shadow dragons, with a whole bunch of major monsters and races outside of that being outright missing.
I can far more easily find stats for the heroes to fight Nazgul from Lord of the Rings (courtesy of Cubicle 7's Adventures in Middle Earth) than I can for a Phaerimm.
On top of that, outside of the SCAG and some of the adventures there's basically nothing concrete and collected for the new Realms. And not all of the damage done has been reversed. It's best to just stick to the pre-Spellplague Realms and ignore anything 1374 DR or so. You can of course freely go earlier and reverse events previously to that, and I wouldn't blame you, but that's the last point before things start the rollercoaster on their way to really sucking.
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
I myself prefer 3.5, with some strong homebrew restrictions to prevent the munchkinization-oops-optimization you may see on sites such as Giant in the Playground.
I believe this is what the kids these days call a 'mood'. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 09:26:30
Speaking as one of the few residential 4E fan we have, 5e is a pretty good system.
First the lore of FR was brought back, so to speak, with another ham-fisted event. Besides the SCAG, you can get good info from practically every adventure put out besides Curse of Strahd since that focuses on Barovia.
Murder in Baldur's Gate
Legacy of the Crystal Shard
Dead in Thay
Horde of the Dragon Queen
Rise of Tiamat
Stormking's Thunder
Tomb of Annihilation
Out of the Abyss
Are all adventures set in/around Faerûn. Not to mention Lost Tales of Myth Drannor and all the AL (adventure league) adventures set in Phlan and the Moonsea. These all have regional info, location updates, and goings-on in the current year of Faerûn.
Ok that aside, the rules are different. I'm not sure what people are looking at with 5e but I see a significant influence of 4e in the rules, most of which are in the form of core assumptions, which I'll list:
·At-will magic. Despite roots in 3e via specific classes and reserve feats, the concept was solidified as a core mechanic of base-line magic for most full-casting classes. These spells scale with character level, not class. Thus a Wizard 1/ Fighter 18 is casting his firebolt as a 19th level caster for damage.
·Exotic Races: basically 4e made Tieflings (Asmodeus blooded and planetouched alike) and Dragonborn a core component of possible character options.
·Equal proficiency bonus - 4E started the notion that everyone add an equal bonus to specific areas, namely attacks, AC, defenses. This was a +1/2 level bonus. 5e uses a flatter +2 to +6 bonus over 20 levels that apply to attacks and to specific saving throws. No more wizards are absolutely terrible with hitting something with a dagger or staff.
·Non-magical healing - a character can spend their Hit Die to heal themselves during short rests (1 hr or more). For example a 8th level wizard (8d6 HD) could spend 4 HD, roll 4d6 and add their Con mod (x4) to regain Hit Points.
-No more hard line Alignment rules. Basically there's no alignment restrictions. No "falling" Paladins that lose their powers (they're called Oathbreakers) or must-be Neutral Druids or always-lawful Monks. Paladins swear Oaths that can follow many different creeds, often LG but not necessarily. Casting Animate Dead doesn't make you instantly evil, etc.
Besides those changes, couple of other aspects are interesting:
- waaaay less broken than 3e. Character optimization just isn't a big thing with huge benefits in 5e. Its a tight system that usually doesn't allow the level of system abuse that was an issue in 3.X/PF.
- Less fiddily bits and ridiculous modifiers and varing effects on a constant basis. Ever calculate a raging barbarian attacks in 3e? How about while enlarged, wielding a weapon with monkey grip, and hastened. But then goes into a anti-magic field....dear God the time taken to calculate is beyond silly. Or using a druid? Or summoning monsters with 5 different feats that alter said monsters?
Yeah none of those are issues in 5e (some you just can't do, others less wonky).
-The focus seems to be a lot more on playing the game rather than char-gen mini game that 3e/PF & 4E sort of thrived on.
-Magic items are important. No more dumb treadmill of expected wealth by level. No more expected magic items X-Mass tree effect. Magic items simply make you better.
Lastly, I feel it's very modular. Don't want to use Feats? No problem! Don't want lots of crazy races? Use the Core rules. Want homebrew stuff, there's a huge community to look thru.
Want to put restrictions on resting or healing or make it easier, the DMG talks about it. Wanna add THAC0 or Weapon Speeds? You can!
I also think it's easy to convert. For me, converting classes, Player Characters, Monsters, items etc to 4E was a piece of cake. I could easily turn a 3.x character into a 4e one with relative ease but it's even easier with 5e. Not to mention how many people have been converting old adventures to 5e too.
So I hope you give it a try. I got burned out with the 3.x issues and now only do 4e and 5e so I hope a quick play thru can show you a really fun game that will last a long while. |
| Storyteller Hero |
Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 04:58:40
Aside from SCAG and what little there is for 5e era novels, Ed Greenwood's Twitter feed will have some updates about lore when he answers the occasional lore question.
There's also the Dungeon Masters Guild website, where community creators can submit lore projects.
I myself have been writing a deity lore pamphlet series that tries to consolidate deity lore from all of the editions into a cohesive history up to the 5e era with explanations for contradictions and changes, with my own writing to fill in gaps here and there.
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 04:10:56
-I gave up a long, long time ago. I don't remember the last FR-relevant anything I last consumed. Just post here I guess so that the memories of all those good times (and even bad times, in some kind of twisted way?) in the past don't disappear. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 03:07:47
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-I'm still trying to figure out the Spellplague here guys, and you start springing more changes on me here...
You might as well stop, because the Spellplague was basically reverted (alongside many of the 3e changes). Even the Avatar Crisis was partially undone (in that old gods like Myrkul now coexist with new gods like Kelemvor, with their portfolios split). |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 03:03:52
-I'm still trying to figure out the Spellplague here guys, and you start springing more changes on me here... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 00:32:50
quote:
Originally posted by roninshadow
Thank you very much on your thoughts on this.For a while I thought of getting the old gang together and see if it was just like yesterday we finished playing (but really 6 years ago). The 5E might be a good ice breaker for people to return.
So what would be a good read to update myself of FR lore 5E?
The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, sometimes referred to as the SCAG, is the closest thing we have to a setting book for 5E. |
| roninshadow |
Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 00:09:25
Thank you very much on your thoughts on this.For a while I thought of getting the old gang together and see if it was just like yesterday we finished playing (but really 6 years ago). The 5E might be a good ice breaker for people to return.
So what would be a good read to update myself of FR lore 5E? |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 17 Feb 2019 : 23:04:43
I think the 5E rule set is my favorite. They tried to bridge the gap between the various editions and I think they did an excellent job. From earlier editions we've returned to a simpler game that encourage theater of the mind (but also allows for minis). From 3E we essentially get variety amongst the classes through the subclass system (essentially the substitution levels idea from late 3.5E, but beefed up to essentially build in prestige classes into the class itself), and from 4E you get more balance between the classes and between characters and encounters than 1E-3E. We also got a return of a lot of the imaginative fluff that disappeared in 4E (which kicked me out of the game frankly, though it did have some good bits like making the environment a stronger part of encounters, and despite it all, I liked the idea of skill challenges).
As others above have indicated, the FR side of things is mixed. As in earlier editions (all of them frankly) there are a fair share of continuity issues and errors in lore, though I find few egregious or any worse than previous editions, and as Steven Schend always argued, these sorts of things are fertile ground for interesting stories. That said, in general, there is a lot less FR lore in the 5E products. Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide skims the service on the current state of the Realms, while the various hard cover modules generally include enough lore to run and expand a bit on the adventures but little more (though some, like Storm King's Thunder have more lore than others and it and some others, like Tomb of Annihilation, have more setting info than others). There are no exhaustive source books, no rumors or current clack, etc. There also isn't a whole of FR-focused crunch like FR-specific races, subclasses, spells, etc. As someone who gobbled those books up in earlier editions and would be excited to see more updated information on the current Realms, that's a bummer, but I still have all my old sourcebooks and work, and the game is solid. |
| Gelcur |
Posted - 17 Feb 2019 : 22:38:27
Yeah 5E rules seem ok, like Wooly pointed out most opinions fall squarely in the middle as opposed to the 4E extremes. The FR lore for 5E is probably also middle of the road-ish, they seem to be trying but rather than creating unique over-arching stories like 3.5 did it feels like a lot of reuse of old material. This is great if you are unfamiliar with old 2E or 3E lore but feels hollow and its kept self contained, it does not feel like events unfolding over the years like 3.5 did.
Just my personal opinion feels better than 4E in all aspects, even easier to convert from 5E to 3.5E. |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 17 Feb 2019 : 20:45:37
First, I would amend Wooly's reaction to 4th edition-at least with respect to the Realms-with the following: "Obliterate it with Mephistopheles' hellfire!" The 5th edition does not have the rules and customization granularity of 3.x or Pathfinder. More importantly, 5th edition does not have that exploding power curve around 16th or 17th level, especially with spellcasters.
I myself prefer 3.5, with some strong homebrew restrictions to prevent the munchkinization-oops-optimization you may see on sites such as Giant in the Playground. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 17 Feb 2019 : 17:57:03
quote:
Originally posted by roninshadow
hello everybody
retired 3.5 edition player but still enjoy reading topics in here.
i am just wondering what people think of the 5th edition? was it worth the change? was many of the problems with the 4th edition fixed?
like to hear some thoughts on this
thank you
5th is a very simple and straightforward ruleset. I don't particularly enjoy it, but it's stupid easy to teach and got A LOT of people into the game, which is a relly good thing.
5e FR is sorely lacking in lore and details, but the good news is that a lot of what the end of 3e and 4e took away is now back (including organizations, nations, and gods). That said, it's like a zombified version of the old Realms; things and characters may be back, but it isn't really the same.
Of course, nothing prevents you from using 5e with the old Realms, so it really boils down to your preference and what you look for in a rule system. 5e has the advantage of being streamlined and smooth, but it doesn't have the granularity or the width of options offered by 3.5 or 4. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 17 Feb 2019 : 17:10:17
I've changed my mind.
Kill it, kill it with fire |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Feb 2019 : 17:08:17
Like the rules, don't like the "Welcome to the New Realms, just like the old Realms' take on the setting. However, I completely understand their decisions from a business perspective ('deep lore' campaigns that last many years only account for about 5-10% of the community, which is negligible, unfortunately).
But as I said, the rules are good. Less convoluted than the god-PC based 3e rules. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Feb 2019 : 16:14:21
quote:
Originally posted by roninshadow
hello everybody
retired 3.5 edition player but still enjoy reading topics in here.
i am just wondering what people think of the 5th edition? was it worth the change? was many of the problems with the 4th edition fixed?
like to hear some thoughts on this
thank you
When the 4E rules came out, I noticed that there were basically two reactions:
1) This ruleset is so awesome I want to have its baby!
2) Kill it! Kill it with fire!
There didn't seem to be a middle ground. I myself fell more into the latter camp.
But... 4E is no longer around, and thanks to Pathfinder, its predecessor is going strong. That says something.
The 5E ruleset, I've not really found anything objectionable in it, myself -- which is a notable contrast from the 4E ruleset. And almost every review I've seen has been positive. Not gushing, and certainly with some complaints, but still overwhelmingly positive.
I've not played 5E myself, mainly because I'm rather invested in Pathfinder and so was the group I was playing with with 5E came out. I'm not adverse to trying it, I'm just not going out of my way to do so.
From what I can see looking at the rules and looking at the reactions, I'd say 5E is worth it and fixes a lot of problems.
|
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 17 Feb 2019 : 14:16:29
I'm with George about rules. The system is straightforward and easy to grasp. You can check it for free here:
http://dnd.wizards.com/basic-rules-dd
Lorewise, you'll get mixed answers, I guess. Myself, I like some things and don't like others. As for the 4e stuff, my answer is: it depends. They preserved some of the contributions to the lore 4e and 3.x did to the Realms, but also brought back a lot of stuff from 2e and 1e. Some people like this approach (myself included), others don't like it.
The idea is good if executed properly, but there is the issue of their current approach to lore in D&D: "The Realms are the standard D&D world". As such, much of the newer 5e lore tends to be pretty generic and linked to the general lore (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, etc.), and some people dislike this.
IMHO, they just need to structure the lore a bit more comprehensively, and it will work. And they also need to stop treating the Realms as a kitchen sink, because is not helping with the cohesiveness of the lore. That's why I liked the idea of a neutral "core" world of the past editions. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 17 Feb 2019 : 13:54:04
quote:
Originally posted by roninshadow
hello everybody
retired 3.5 edition player but still enjoy reading topics in here.
i am just wondering what people think of the 5th edition? was it worth the change? was many of the problems with the 4th edition fixed?
like to hear some thoughts on this
thank you
Rules are good. I like the spell and magic item templates which are my go to for article ideas.
PC classes look like they are flexible with plenty of options.
-- George Krashos |
|
|
