Why the hate on 5e?

[Aergentum]

Sunday evening I went to an opening event for a Tabletop Games Social Club with my girlfriend and an other firend. We had fun chatting with the owner of the club and other people, then we agreed to play a one shot with them.
It's been ages since I last played a 3.5 game and I didn't remember at all how different it was from the 5th, and the other friend had actually no experience with 3.5. Making the character sheets took too much and the master got upset and asked us if anything was wrong with it.

DM: "So? Are these sheets ready?"
AG: "Not yet, 3.5 it's a little different from the 5th and I'm having issues with ability scores and abilities..."
DM: "Oh, so you're a 5th player..."
AG: "Yes, is there a problem with it? I'm fine with playing this one shot with the 3.5"
DM: "Yeah but, you play that ****ty edition, so you're not a good player."
AG: "We'll see about that..."

We finished the sheets and started the game. We got our asses roeasted by the DM who claimed it was because we couldn't play properly due to our background as a 5th player.
I didn't got mad about it, but I felt hurt. I really enjoyed 3.5 in the past, but now I'd rather play with the 5th because I find it easyer to master the games, and as a player I have more fun than I had in the past.

I really don't get why the hate on the 5th edition. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are different editions with different focus, but it hutrs to be labeled as an incompetent player just because I play another edition.

[Safety Sword]

Typical elitist behaviour. Been the same way since every new version of a game came out. This more seems to be a problem with the people (your DM) than the systems themselves.

Everyone has their preferred system. Find people who play yours and have a good time.

I played D&D 3.5E for many years and loved it. I DM'd it and hated it.

D&D 5E is easier on both sides, but I guess some people like to torture themselves by making high level spell casters in D&D 3.5E

[Mordaedil]

This is what we call a grognard. He didn't even bother helping the player out, instead choosing to be a **** about what edition they play and prefer.

Everybody has their preferences, but some people stick their guns into one edition and plays No True Scotsman while they Gatekeep the hobby in this way. It's not great and you just kinda gotta point out that each edition has their weaknesses and strengths.

Yeah, 5e is simpler than 3.5, but it still manages to be extremely rich in customization at little sacrifice compared to 3.5.

3.5 meanwhile is a deluge of content unbalanced to hell and back, with a lot of obscure mechanics, poorly written sourcebooks with a huge emphasis on mechanics that bog the game down more than they assist making a more interesting game.

3.5 is still my favorite edition, but I've grown really fond of 5e as well. I think picking favorites between them like he did is really foolish.

[LittleCaesar]

Well of course you're going to be not-as-good at an edition you haven't played in a while. That has nothing to do with the merits of either system, or of your proficiency as a player. You're just rusty, and the DM sounds like an ass.

My own subjective view is that a "good player" is a person who's fun to play with. Since it's a roleplaying game, this has more to do with whether they are fun to interact with at your table, than with their strategic prowess or thespian prowess. Someone could be good at tactics, or roleplaying, or funny voices, or at bringing snacks and cracking lame puns but that doesn't automatically make them good or bad at DnD.

If the DM wanted a strategic mastermind running off years of fresh experience in 3.5, then he probably should have sculpted his table to match, or matched his expectations to the table. Either way he could have engaged with the players in front of him without being such an jerk.

[Zerubbabel]

Whatever is the best balanced version between complexity and storytelling. That's why 5e shines.

The DM isn't wrong, he's entitled to his opinion. Sounds like he'd probably love Pathfinder!

To me 5e is far more story driven, but still very complicated - particularly if you add in feats and multi-classing (which I don't).

[Evil DM Mark3]

Heh, back in my day I would sit down to a game of 3rd edition and be exposed to the over-loud and pointed comments of the rotund gentlemen sat at the table behind us, claiming we were playing baby's first DnD for people who couldn't work out Thaco and who didn't enjoy a challenge. Us young kids with our 4d6 drop one and skill points and our fancy feats and easy multi-classing, consarnit.

We didn't listen to them much either. Mind you they eventually picked up NWoD over Revised. Heathens.

I do sort of get the idea, I've played 5e and had to work really hard to feel like was playing MY character, not generic Lore Bard #472, and there is a lot of simplifying of a lot of the "detail" rules IMO. I'd play it again mind you, but I'd prefer Pathfinder, much easier to put your own stamp on that (although conversely it is much easier to create an unplayable mess, so...)

[Anymage]

I've seen very little hate on 5e. I'm guessing largely due to the fact that it followed 4e, which drew the bulk of hater attention to itself.

I find it especially telling that this guy's attitude was "every game that isn't 3.5 sucks". There are games I'll excuse myself from playing because I don't think they'll be any fun, but I find myself very wary of people who insist that there's one game to rule them all.

[MoiMagnus]

If you want an answer from peoples who hate it, you would have more chances by asking on the 3e/3.5e/d20 subforum. But even there, few will actually hate it, most will just says they don't like it.

A lot of peoples hated 3e when it was released, as it gave almighty powers to munchkins and minmaxers, and was turned by some DM into something more like a boardgame than a RPG. A lot of peoples hated 4e for essentially trying to being a fully balanced boardgame. And 5e is hated for the converse of the 2 previous editions: it threw away most of the complexity in character creation, get rid of tactical positioning (flanking, ...), ...
(Which means that 5e is most likely the nearest in spirit to the second edition, by the way)

But that does not fully answer "why the hate?", because the reasons I gave are only reason to "not like" 5e. The reason why peoples hate an edition or another is because it creates expectations in players they don't want to meet as a DM, or expectation as a DM the players don't want to meet. Additionally, peoples having a preference with older editions can feel let down by the community shifting to the most recent ones (and react aggressively to the world essentially saying "your hobby is obsolete, 5e is objectively better, deal with it"). This is particularly true for 3e, which remained in a dominant position even through the 4e era, but now lost a significant portion of its players and DMs to 5e.

Last note: Probably not a DM I would like to have for more than one session. I don't want to play with a DM that will latter says "Oh, you're dead, but that's because you're so bad at playing you didn't take the OP feat you can unlock by making those choices during the 5 previous levels, and was required to have a chance to survive. Even a noob would have seen that this feat was mandatory for your build, guess you should read more online guides.".

[Jerrykhor]

I think there's more hate on 4e than 5e, if anything. Most grognards i spoke to approve of 5e's overall design.

Though once in a while you can still find the odd one who still prefers 3.5. They are a bunch of elitist gatekeepers who usually bash 5e for being 'dumbed down'.

[Aergentum]

For sure I will not go back there and play one shots (let alone campaigns) with them. Maybe I will consider the idea to use their rooms with my group and play there our adventures with 5e. The place is nice and looks like an old tavern ripped out of a fantasy novel.

I'd love to play 3.5 adventures once in a while, but not with people who claims I can't play because I usually play 5e.

At least with 5e I can play a decent Monk without the need of multiclass...

[Knaight]

This sounds like a 3.x specific fanbase quirk more than a general dislike of 5e. Somehow a subcultural meme of "I play more mechanically complicated games because I'm smarter than you" got pretty deeply embedded there, and while most of the player base either takes that with a giant grain of salt or actively disagrees with it there's enough that don't to be really obnoxious. Beyond that, public groups also tend to be enriched in players and GMs who can't get a home group together - again, it's not all or even most of them, but it's enough to be really obnoxious.

[Randomthom]

DM is entitled to his opinion, he's not entitled to belittel other people because they don't agree with his opinion.

This DM reminds me of that wonderful line in The Big Lebowski

"You're not wrong Walter, you're just an *******"

[Corsair14]

Well 2nd is the one true and best system but 5e isn't bad. I don't mind 3.5 either, especially if you limit the splat books to core and maybe advanced races guide. I prefer to play 3.5 over 5e due to customization and options(no I am not a power gamer), but I prefer to DM 5e(or 2nd) due to the lack of player options :P thus making it extremely easy to run a game with little preparation.

This guy the OP was playing under seems to be a **** and not a good representative of the prior system. Hey, at least they weren't playing 4th.

[elyktsorb]

To be fair, isn't the popularity of 5e also a cause for people to more easily notice when others dislike it?

[patchyman]

Typical elitist behaviour. Been the same way since every new version of a game came out. This more seems to be a problem with the people (your DM) than the systems themselves.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that some tabletop players have poor social skills. [/End Sarcasm].

[Sigreid]

To be fair, isn't the popularity of 5e also a cause for people to more easily notice when others dislike it?

There's a big difference between not liking a system and "you like x system so clearly you suck. Here, let me prove to you that you objectively suck as a player."

[Arkhios]

Elitist Grognards unwilling to pull their own heads out of their own asses.

[CNagy]

If you're not playing AD&D 2nd Edition with Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers books, then you're running around in one of those baby walkers with the harness that helps you stand and the wheels that keep you balanced.

[Sigreid]

If you're not playing AD&D 2nd Edition with Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers books, then you're running around in one of those baby walkers with the harness that helps you stand and the wheels that keep you balanced.

1st edition or you're just a poser.

[CNagy]

1st edition or you're just a poser.

The only posing I do is with my Gygax-signed copy of Chainmail.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The DM was an bad person (I use 3 levels: humans, moving objects in space and human trash).


I do think that 3.5e is better because it looks to me that 5e have no real customisation(personal feel).

I also think that the edition is not important as the game is the group you are in.

That is why a person like me play an edition he hates.

[Eldariel]

Heh, back in my day I would sit down to a game of 3rd edition and be exposed to the over-loud and pointed comments of the rotund gentlemen sat at the table behind us, claiming we were playing baby's first DnD for people who couldn't work out Thaco and who didn't enjoy a challenge. Us young kids with our 4d6 drop one and skill points and our fancy feats and easy multi-classing, consarnit.

Hey, AD&D 2e is certainly a far superior system for teaching kids geometry. Make them all play Magic-users and watch them puzzle out the AOE of their Fireball or Lightning Bolt. Even THAC0 is good algebra practice 😄

[truemane]

Whatever is the best balanced version between complexity and storytelling. That's why 5e shines.

Just remember that there is no such thing as a "best balanced version between complexity and storytelling" only the version that best balances your personal taste in complexity against your personal taste in storytelling. 5E definitely leans hard away from complexity, but whether that means better storytelling or not is very much a matter of personal taste. It's certainly very popular, and I do think that popularity is largely because of how easy it is to sit down and get started.

But that doesn't make it the best. Because there is no best.

And being old, I remember very clearly when 2nd Edition was released and the Combat Matrices (a table for every class, cross-referencing every AC from -10 to +10, with every level, and what number you needed to hit) were replaced with THAC0 (basically just a mathematical to-hit progression, slightly wonked out to deal with the fact that low AC was better than high, and that there was a 0 in the middle of the scale), and so many people were all SO COMPLICATED and many others were all NOT COMPLICATED ENOUGH.

I also remember having a (mercifully) quick conversation with a guy shortly after the release of 3.0, and it was his opinion that "3rd Edition is a game by and for people who have NO idea how to run a d20 system."

And, just a couple of weeks ago, I was perusing used RPG books in a LGS, and I overheard two 20-somethings saying, "5th Edition isn't a role-playing game, it's Wizards handing you a book that just says Use Your Imagination." Gatekeeping is eternal.

Death, taxes, and the kids don't know nuthin: the only constants in life.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Sunday evening I went to an opening event for a Tabletop Games Social Club with my girlfriend and an other firend. We had fun chatting with the owner of the club and other people, then we agreed to play a one shot with them.
It's been ages since I last played a 3.5 game and I didn't remember at all how different it was from the 5th, and the other friend had actually no experience with 3.5. Making the character sheets took too much and the master got upset and asked us if anything was wrong with it.

DM: "So? Are these sheets ready?"
AG: "Not yet, 3.5 it's a little different from the 5th and I'm having issues with ability scores and abilities..."
DM: "Oh, so you're a 5th player..."
AG: "Yes, is there a problem with it? I'm fine with playing this one shot with the 3.5"
DM: "Yeah but, you play that ****ty edition, so you're not a good player."
AG: "We'll see about that..."

We finished the sheets and started the game. We got our asses roeasted by the DM who claimed it was because we couldn't play properly due to our background as a 5th player.
I didn't got mad about it, but I felt hurt. I really enjoyed 3.5 in the past, but now I'd rather play with the 5th because I find it easyer to master the games, and as a player I have more fun than I had in the past.

I really don't get why the hate on the 5th edition. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are different editions with different focus, but it hutrs to be labeled as an incompetent player just because I play another edition.

First off, it could be because of the Big Bang Theory guys or something but 5e is LOVED more than any other edition of D&D I played.

Perhaps he's the "Real Rock Radio KSHE95" guy who can't understand why they've become an oldies station after decades of calling new artists posers who weren't as good as "Skynard man".

Maybe he's an incompetent 5e player but good at 3.5.

He, I knew this guy, maybe he can rebuild Holly carburetors blindfolded and recalibrate them for altitude while refueling but can't figure out how to plug in and pull a OBDII code to tell where his misfire is.

Some of us (myself included) are just stuck doing things a certain way and see other ways as inferior. He's probably upset the world has largely moved on from 3.5. Maybe he has fond memories of the 3.5 days. Who knows.

[Segev]

The DM in question was being a mean jerk, because there's nothing about playing 5e that would make playing 3e "harder." If anything, a 5e player who remembers that he has different class features in 3e than in 5e will find a lot of mechanics more forgiving in terms of what they permit you to do. Not all, but a lot. AoOs happen more often (though, yes, this conversely means it's easier to provoke them...but that's generally to the party's benefit as few monsters are built around them). Concentration is nastier, but on far, far fewer spells, meaning you can keep more things up at once.

And other than that, while there ARE lots of differences, they're mostly transparent to the player. The DM tells you when you get a bonus to your die roll in 3e just as he tells you when you get Advantage in 5e.

I could see making a few tactical mistakes based on 5e assumptions, but nothing party-destroying unless you play a finely-tuned game of 5e tactics (which, let's be honest, 5e does NOT need you to do to win fights fairly handily).

I personally like both editions for different things. 5e has a lot of moments where I react with surprise that the writers lost their fear of handing PCs cool stuff. But 3.PF has a ton more options and ways to customize. I prefer 3e's skill system, even though I know most people say the granularity isn't actually useful. I disagree, personally, as it grants more flexibility to being "somewhat" skilled in things, enabling a choice of breadth over depth that has some meaning to it. Especially in PF, where that first rank of a skill can be a +4!

But yeah, the kind of "5e hate" you saw here was just a guy being an elitist jerk.

[strangebloke]

Just to add one point: It's obviously stupid elitist behavior, sure, but there's another axis to this problem.

5e has brought millions of newbs to the game. Newbs, are, fundamentally, a great thing for the life of the game. It means you can find actual tables to play at. It means you'll still be able to find players 2-3 years from now when your current group ultimately splits up.

But newbs are also, well, newbs. Playing with my old 3.5 group feels like putting on a favorite shirt. They know how **** works, they know how to show good table etiquette... conversely, my 5e group is way out of shape and bumbles around constantly. This has nothing to do with the edition and everything to do with their relative (out of character) experience levels.

[Warwick]

The DM in question was being a mean jerk, because there's nothing about playing 5e that would make playing 3e "harder."

The biggest issue is that it's fairly easy to fail character creation in 3.5 while you mostly have to try to do so in 5e, and the 'punishment' for making a bad character is generally more severe.

[GlenSmash!]

5e is extremely popular and popularity always breeds some resentment.

Still this DM could have been decent and said, we prefer 3.5 to 5e but you are welcome to play with us. But they didn't.

If it were me I would definitely contact the organizers of this Tabletop Games Social Club and inform them of how rude and disrespectful this DM was.

[KorvinStarmast]

DM: "So? Are these sheets ready?"
AG: "Not yet, 3.5 it's a little different from the 5th and I'm having issues with ability scores and abilities..."
DM: "Oh, so you're a 5th player..."
AG: "Yes, is there a problem with it? I'm fine with playing this one shot with the 3.5"
DM: "Yeah but, you play that ****ty edition, so you're not a good player."
AG: "We'll see about that..."

At that point, we pick up our dice bag and wish this person a fine evening.

Life's too short to hang out with people like this.

Here's what would be a cool thing;
"OK, I'll help you over the rough spots since there are some differences, let's go for it!"

That would be a good DM. Not the one you ran into.

The only posing I do is with my Gygax-signed copy of Chainmail.

And my EGG signed copies of the three little brown books ... and Greyhawk ...

Gatekeeping is eternal.

Death, taxes, and the kids don't know nuthin: the only constants in life.

Well said.

About grognards: it's about being old and complaining. It's not necessarily about hating new editions. (look up the etymology of the term).

The OSR movement arose for a bunch of reasons, and I was out of the game when this great "fracture" arose. I am glad I missed the drama.

I would likely have played a bit more 3.5 (I got three core books and a few others) had life not changed a lot in those days (My brother and nephew and a few buddies back in Virginia all got on board the 3.x train) but life didn't work out that way. I had so much AD&D 1e material, and BX stuff, that I played a hybrid of that with my kiids.

4e: didn't buy since by then we'd stopped D&Ding in at the house due to spousal objections and me loving my wife more than an RPG.

5e, Invited by a friend after the kids had grown up. Had an on line platform. It was GREAT to get back into the hobby again. 5e brought in some stuff from 0E, 1E, BECMI, 2E, 3.xE, 4E: they really did try to unify the community. I say the effort is "good enough" but I have some 4e loving friends who just can't find any love for 5.

But they'd never pull a line like that on me.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, sounds like you dealt with a butthead. It's totally fine to prefer 3.5 to 5E, or Mutants And Masterminds to Powered By The Apocalypse, or FATE to GURPS, or whatever. What's NOT cool is to crap on someone else for liking something else.

I haven't seen much hate for 5E, though-I've seen plenty of people assuming it's just as unbalanced as 3.5, but that's usually ignorance, not malice.