The Best and Worst of 5e

[mr_odd]

I just got my new player's handbook last week, and I cannot wait to try out 5e once our current campaign ends. I've read a bunch of reviews, but I want the playground's opinion: What are the best features of 5e? What are the worst? Are all classes/races fun to play and balanced? What does 5e allow DMs or players to do that previous editions couldn't?

[hymer]

My opinions:

What are the best features of 5e?

Simplicity. The game creators successfully compressed the game, reducing the amount of fidly bits.

What are the worst?

"Make rulings, not rules." The game doesn't tell you how to play it, so you need a lot of conversations with the group about how you're going to do something, and in a real sense you can't build your character at home. There is no place you can look up the game terms and get their definitions. Rules clash time and again, and at other times are simply vaguely worded.
You need a lot of trust in the group and particularly in the DM to play this. If the DM has a bad night, this will trip her/him up more.

Are all classes/races fun to play and balanced?

Not as balanced (bland) as 4th edition, more balanced than 3.X. Fun is very subjective. I think there is no race or class that does not appeal to some D&D player somewhere.

What does 5e allow DMs or players to do that previous editions couldn't?

Nothing, in the sense that rule 0 always existed. But the game does seem to expect the DM to do a lot of the above-mentioned rulings, which of course should give DMs more power to do the game the way they want. But then, they always had that power.
But really, we need to see the DMG before we can be definitive on this.

[MadGrady]

My favorite thing so far (and we've just started playing through LMoP) is the streamlined combat rules. Combat rounds go quicker, allowing for more enemies to be on the board without grinding the flow of the game to a halt. There is a surprising amount of depth allowed through the roleplaying aspect that was much harder to do in previous editions. Of course, this is greatly helped by my players, who are very involved and take the roleplaying aspect very seriously. Which is probably my one caution for this edition - it puts a lot of its hopes and power on how well you (as the DM) and the players tell the story together.

That being said, I found that though a lot of things were streamlined and consolidated, I didn't feel cheated. In addition, because of the lessened focus on mechanics, we have found it easier to homebrew class features/races that feel balanced compared to the standard stuff.

[mr_odd]

My favorite thing so far (and we've just started playing through LMoP) is the streamlined combat rules. Combat rounds go quicker, allowing for more enemies to be on the board without grinding the flow of the game to a halt. There is a surprising amount of depth allowed through the roleplaying aspect that was much harder to do in previous editions. Of course, this is greatly helped by my players, who are very involved and take the roleplaying aspect very seriously. Which is probably my one caution for this edition - it puts a lot of its hopes and power on how well you (as the DM) and the players tell the story together.

That being said, I found that though a lot of things were streamlined and consolidated, I didn't feel cheated. In addition, because of the lessened focus on mechanics, we have found it easier to homebrew class features/races that feel balanced compared to the standard stuff.

One thing I want to bring to my table is a focus on story telling and role play, which is one of the reasons I am so excited about this edition.

Homebrew is now easier? Could you expand upon that a bit more?

[archaeo]

One thing I want to bring to my table is a focus on story telling and role play, which is one of the reasons I am so excited about this edition.

I definitely think 5e has been written with that in mind; the PHB and MM are chock full of plot hooks and story ideas, and the PC backgrounds mechanism makes it really easy to wrap your head around what kind of character you're playing. The subclasses also feel like they're chock full of fluff and flavor, though some are moreso than others.

That said, the best way to focus on storytelling and role play is to have players that are interested in doing just that. 5e does a lot of things right, and it contains a lot of really good crunch and inspiration to get players moving, but there's just no substitute for players who are motivated to RP and tell a good story.

[MadGrady]

I come from playing Pathfinder, which was incredibly mechanics heavy, and when homebrewing classes, we found it took a lot of work to ensure something was both balanced, while still useful (ie. not too powerful, and not too weak).

We switched to 5e after I picked up the PHB.

My primary example of something being easier for us to homebrew is a race we built - catfolk (which we call Pantherans in our game).

Races in this edition are nice and simple - get a bonus to 2 ability scores, and about 3-5 key racial traits. usually skill proficiencies. So we homebrewed our Catfolk to have +2 Dex +1 Wis, Full Speed on Climb checks, and proficiency in either Stealth, Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception (pick 2).

Took us about 10 minutes to come up with it from scratch, and we have played a few games and it works perfectly.

When I say it is easier to homebrew, I mean this - if you and your DM are committed to having fun, and telling a great story COOPERATIVELY, then the rules can take a back seat and just have fun. I found myself getting excited about my player's decisions and choices bcause of their story possibilities, rather than trying to figure out how the hell Im going to combat that choice. That might seem like a "duh" moment, but in previous games we have played this was not always the case - this system encourages cooperation.

[MadGrady]

5e does a lot of things right, and it contains a lot of really good crunch and inspiration to get players moving, but there's just no substitute for players who are motivated to RP and tell a good story.

^This - this is the best thing said so far

[Steel Mirror]

Homebrew is now easier? Could you expand upon that a bit more?

I don't want to put words in anyone else's mouth, but for me homebrew is easier than it was in 4E because the math is not nearly so tight and level-based as it was back then, and because their isn't the same huge edifice of interacting powers and edge cases and conditions that made 4E so rewarding tactically and annoying bookkeeping-wise.

Homebrewing is harder for me in 5E than it is in 3.X, but I think that is mostly just due to my long familiarity with 3.X. Overall I bet 5E is going to be pretty good for the homebrewer, as D&D has always been.

Other than that, I heartily concur that streamlined combat is a big point in 5E's favor, with the caveat that I haven't played past 5th level so I suppose things could get bogged down in later levels. I play on a tactical mat, and I also feel that 5E has opened up the mat to make tactical movement and so on more fun and exciting, which is due to a combination of allowing people to break up their movement over the course of a turn and letting the DM assign advantage for wacky swash-buckling hijinks that the players get up to.

I think the worst thing about 5E might be the much-simplified weapon rules. It's not a big deal, I wouldn't say it ruined the edition for me or even noticeably detracts from an overall splendid game, but I do like my broadaxe wielder to feel different from my longsword wielder. I like to be able to look at an arsenal of weapons during character creation and feel like my choice is going to help define my character, whereas in 5E I feel like I have a build in mind (sword'n'board based on Dex, for instance) and the proper choice has already been made for me. But then, I think that D&D hasn't ever done that particularly well, and maybe people aren't that interested in what they are swinging with so long as they get to bash some orcs to death. So I'll just pine in the corner of my mind for a more extensive weapons list while still having fun out in the dungeon hacking and slashing.

Oh one other thing I like about 5E- it makes casters fun to play from level 1 (no more 1 or 2 round working days like in 3.5) while maintaining the different feel of every class (4E's perceived samieness has inspired many a bitter thread), but it also curtails caster power so that mundanes are at least as effective, if not moreso.

[MadGrady]

I think the worst thing about 5E might be the much-simplified weapon rules. It's not a big deal, I wouldn't say it ruined the edition for me or even noticeably detracts from an overall splendid game, but I do like my broadaxe wielder to feel different from my longsword wielder. I like to be able to look at an arsenal of weapons during character creation and feel like my choice is going to help define my character, whereas in 5E I feel like I have a build in mind (sword'n'board based on Dex, for instance) and the proper choice has already been made for me. But then, I think that D&D hasn't ever done that particularly well, and maybe people aren't that interested in what they are swinging with so long as they get to bash some orcs to death. So I'll just pine in the corner of my mind for a more extensive weapons list while still having fun out in the dungeon hacking and slashing.

I am glad that the different weapon proficiencies have been condensed, but I can definitely see your point about actual differences really not being evident. We've refluffed certain weapons to be other weapons based upon character's vision for their character, but it all comes down to still doing 1d6-1d8 B/P/S damage, no matter how much you refluff. For something to feel different, the character themselves has to portray it as different.

[Daishain]

Bear in mind, this is from the perspective of someone that has mostly skipped fourth edition

The best
-Feats: They're much more powerful than in 3.5e. There are few if any truly "dead" feats, someone will want it. And with the exception of the armor related feats, the only prerequisites are relatively low ability scores (no more having to take dodge and mobility to get to spring attack!)
Classes: The designers have done a decent job of balancing things out, and pretty much every class has cool and effective options. Most of them are expressed via...
-Subclasses: Every class has at least two subclasses, unique feature lines that can greatly expand your options. For instance, the base fighter can become the champion (straight combat character, perhaps boring but definitely effective), the Battlemaster (a tome of battle inspired warrior), and the Eldritch Knight (what it sounds like, get a small list of wizard spells added on without sacrificing ability to mix it up in melee)
-Multiclassing for spellcasters: This edition makes it much easier to mix and match spellcasting types. For instance a cleric10/wizard 10 can prepare a little more than half the cleric spells of a cleric 20 (the same goes for wizard), and still can cast all the way up to level 9 spells off of both spell lists. (Note that the wizard and cleric spells are competing for spells per day.)

The worst
-Feat/ability progression: You no longer get a feat at first level, feats are now tied to ability progression, and ability progression is tied to class progression. This has several effects, among others, it discourages multiclassing, and characters below level 8-12 are unlikely to have any feats at all, since most characters are better off closing off holes in their ability array first. (Also, feats in general are now technically an optional system that the DM is fully able to veto, great, thanks)
-Concentration spells: An effort to cut down on buff/debuff stacking, along with other tricks spellcasters once had to break the game, this one went too far. As it stands, nearly every duration spell is marked as concentration. You can only have one concentration spell active at a time, and they are easily disrupted.

The mixed bag
-The math: 5E simplifies and tones down the skill/save/attack bonus progression found in previous editions. This is great, you're no longer running a race just to keep up with everything, and less in the way of bookkeeping is often welcome. However, it often means that actually displaying a significant difference between the master of a field and an apprentice is more difficult, and can lead to some absurd scenarios. One I pointed out before was the case of a party fully capable of slaying a powerful red dragon with relative ease, but gets TPKed and eaten by a bunch of dire rats.

[Steel Mirror]

-Concentration spells: An effort to cut down on buff/debuff stacking, along with other tricks spellcasters once had to break the game, this one went too far. As it stands, nearly every duration spell is marked as concentration. You can only have one concentration spell active at a time, and they are easily disrupted.

I actually love this change, as it does a great deal to reign in caster supremacy and to limit the amount of buffs/summons/whatever else the caster has to track, which ate up a lot of time at the table back in high level 3.X. To each their own, naturally, but for me and my group this has been a godsend!

[Galen]

Nothing, in the sense that rule 0 always existed. But the game does seem to expect the DM to do a lot of the above-mentioned rulings, which of course should give DMs more power to do the game the way they want. But then, they always had that power.

Well, the main difference between 5E and previous editions (especially 3.5) is this:

3.5E, 4E: "Here, we made a rule for his - but feel free to ignore it if you want."
5E: "We didn't make a rule for this - because we trust you to be able to decide for yourself."

And you know what, I kind of like this mindset.

[Daishain]

I actually love this change, as it does a great deal to reign in caster supremacy and to limit the amount of buffs/summons/whatever else the caster has to track, which ate up a lot of time at the table back in high level 3.X. To each their own, naturally, but for me and my group this has been a godsend!

I agree that something needed to be done, and limiting duration spells somehow does seem like a good way to go about it. I just feel like I should be able to give the rest of the party something to help them out without eliminating half of my spell list as an option. As things stand, I suspect that I will never use about 80% of the concentration spells available, just because there will always be another concentration spell that is a better option to have active.

[hymer]

As it stands, nearly every duration spell is marked as concentration. You can only have one concentration spell active at a time, and they are easily disrupted.

Just a quick look. The following spells do not require concentration and have a duration bigger than instantaneous: Aid, Alarm, Animal Friendship, Animal Messenger, Antipathy/Sympathy, Arcane Lock, Armor of Agathys, and Astral Projection. And that's just A.
Even the Adult Red Dragon doesn't break the DC 10 line with its average attack. If you're playing without feats, you'll have 20 con. If you're playing with feats, you'll be proficient in Con saves and have advantage on them when maintaining concentration.
Disruptions will happen, but I really don't see it as a major problem.

[SaintRidley]

Count me among those loving concentration.

-Multiclassing for spellcasters: This edition makes it much easier to mix and match spellcasting types. For instance a cleric10/wizard 10 can prepare a little more than half the cleric spells of a cleric 20 (the same goes for wizard), and still can cast all the way up to level 9 spells off of both spell lists. (Note that the wizard and cleric spells are competing for spells per day.)

Can't cast 9th level spells. You can cast your spells from both lists in 9th level slots, but you cannot cast any spells listed as 6th level or higher, because you only have access to spells known as a 10th level of either. 9th level fireballs yes, meteor swarms no.

[Daishain]

Count me among those loving concentration.



Can't cast 9th level spells. You can cast your spells from both lists in 9th level slots, but you cannot cast any spells listed as 6th level or higher, because you only have access to spells known as a 10th level of either. 9th level fireballs yes, meteor swarms no.

Cleric section on preparing spells "the spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots"
Wizard section on preparing spells "the spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots"
Wizard section on inscribing new spells "you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots"

There are no limitations in either class description limiting spells to actual class level.

The cleric has access to his entire list so long as he has the spell slots, and the wizard can learn and prepare any spell so long as he has the spell slots, and the same holds true for the druid.

Now among the other full casters, Warlocks are a different matter entirely, also the bard and sorcerer can have trouble due to when they pick their spells known, but the specific example I used works exactly as I described.

[Edge of Dreams]

Cleric section on preparing spells "the spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots"
Wizard section on preparing spells "the spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots"
Wizard section on inscribing new spells "you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots"

The cleric has access to his entire list so long as he has the spell slots, and the wizard can learn and prepare any spell so long as he has the spell slots.

Now, Warlocks are a different matter, and sorcerer can have trouble due to when they pick their spells known, but the specific example I used works exactly as I described.

You'd be right, except the multiclassing rules specifically say that when you learn or prepare spells, you treat each class separately, as if that was the only class you had levels in. So, you get to prep spells as if you were a level 10 Cleric, THEN prep spells as if you were a level 10 Wizard, THEN walk around with the spell slots of a level 20 character.

[Kurald Galain]

What are the best features of 5e?

The focus on roleplaying, e.g. by listing character goals on the character sheet, having various backgrounds roll for personality traits, and the inspiration mechanic.

Overall, the design does a good job of fixing the most common complaints about 4E (e.g. its slow combat, overly complicated character generation, and lack of verisimilitude).

What are the worst?

Numerous out-of-combat rules and the skill system in particular. 5E is still basically a combat simulator with everything else tacked on as an afterthought (although less so than in 4E). 5E characters take eight to twelve levels to reach the competence in skills that 3E/4E characters have at level 1.

Also, characters don't get a lot of decision points as they level up, and don't grow all that much stronger as they level (compared to earlier editions). Whether this is a good thing or a bad depends on who you ask.

Are all classes/races fun to play and balanced?

That's a matter of taste.

What does 5e allow DMs or players to do that previous editions couldn't?

The game was built to appeal to fans of earlier editions, and as a result it doesn't bring anything new to the table, nor does it have to.

[Galen]

Cleric section on preparing spells "the spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots"
Wizard section on preparing spells "the spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots"
Wizard section on inscribing new spells "you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots".

Old habits die hard, I see

This wishfully-selective style of reading is characteristic to 3.5E players, and I'm wishing you the best in eradicating it. A good first step would be to actually read the PHB section titled "multiclassing" before you make comments on how multiclassing works.

There are no limitations in either class description limiting spells to actual class level

That's because multiclassing is an optional rule. The standard text for Cleric, Wizard, etc. does not accommodate for it. The standard text for Cleric assumes you are a single-classed Cleric, the standard text for Wizard assumes you are a single-classed Wizard, and so on. If you are using the multiclassing optional rules, the specific chapter titled "multiclassing" trumps the standard class descriptions.

[Lokiare]

My opinions:

Simplicity. The game creators successfully compressed the game, reducing the amount of fidly bits.

"Make rulings, not rules." The game doesn't tell you how to play it, so you need a lot of conversations with the group about how you're going to do something, and in a real sense you can't build your character at home. There is no place you can look up the game terms and get their definitions. Rules clash time and again, and at other times are simply vaguely worded.
You need a lot of trust in the group and particularly in the DM to play this. If the DM has a bad night, this will trip her/him up more.

Not as balanced (bland) as 4th edition, more balanced than 3.X. Fun is very subjective. I think there is no race or class that does not appeal to some D&D player somewhere.

Nothing, in the sense that rule 0 always existed. But the game does seem to expect the DM to do a lot of the above-mentioned rulings, which of course should give DMs more power to do the game the way they want. But then, they always had that power.
But really, we need to see the DMG before we can be definitive on this.

I agree with this one almost completely.

The one point I disagree with is the "balanced (bland)" part. Balance and Blandness are two entirely different spectrums and have nothing to do with each other. You can have an exciting and fun balanced game like just about any MMO that's been out for any amount of time. You can also have a very bland balanced game like checkers. The two are not the same and have nothing to do with each other. Its just an internet meme that gathered steam.

[Daishain]

You'd be right, except the multiclassing rules specifically say that when you learn or prepare spells, you treat each class separately, as if that was the only class you had levels in. So, you get to prep spells as if you were a level 10 Cleric, THEN prep spells as if you were a level 10 Wizard, THEN walk around with the spell slots of a level 20 character.

Hmm, I had read that as simply using individual class level as a limit on the number of spells prepared, which is supported by the language used in the class writeups. But the specific example they used supports your interpretation. Well, I suppose that is still better than it was before.

[Finieous]

You can have an exciting and fun balanced game like just about any MMO that's been out for any amount of time.

Really??? I haven't played an MMO in a couple years, but things must have really changed!

[Daishain]

Old habits die hard, I see

This wishfully-selective style of reading is characteristic to 3.5E players, and I'm wishing you the best in eradicating it. A good first step would be to actually read the PHB section titled "multiclassing" before you make comments on how multiclassing works.

That's because multiclassing is an optional rule. The standard text for Cleric, Wizard, etc. does not accommodate for it. The standard text for Cleric assumes you are a single-classed Cleric, the standard text for Wizard assumes you are a single-classed Wizard, and so on. If you are using the multiclassing optional rules, the specific chapter titled "multiclassing" trumps the standard class descriptions.

I did read it, though apparently I missed a detail. See above.

There is an old habit involved, though I'm not sure I want to break it. Most of these "optional rules" are from where I'm sitting standard features of the game at large, and treating them as something entirely separate feels wrong.

[Lokiare]

Really??? I haven't played an MMO in a couple years, but things must have really changed!

Yes, almost all MMO's follow the same model in which everything is balanced within about 10% of each other. The only place where this isn't true is in MMO's based on skill like Defiant which is an FPS where your gear puts you above or below everyone else's gear by 5%, but the game is based almost entirely on twitch skills and reaction time. I know this for a fact because I accidentally went and did a near end game mission without realizing it at low level until another player pointed it out to me.

[randomodo]

Worst: halfling art.

Oh, you mean mechanically... never mind.

[Finieous]

Yes, almost all MMO's follow the same model in which everything is balanced within about 10% of each other.

I'm really impressed. When I played WoW, for example, the classes were wildly unbalanced. They were wildly unbalanced in different ways between raiding and PvP, at different levels, and they were even unbalanced in different ways for different instances and boss fights. Classes were constantly being nerfed and buffed, and the game was a cycle of first one or more classes dominating, then others, over and over again. And much (most?) of the imbalance wasn't easily quantifiable, so I don't know how you'd even begin to measure it against your "about 10%" rule.

It's astonishing that this has apparently changed completely after the first eight-plus years of the game's existence!

[mr_odd]

Worst: halfling art.

Oh, you mean mechanically... never mind.

The terrifying Halfling art is amazing.

[MadGrady]

Worst: halfling art.

Oh, you mean mechanically... never mind.

This is so true though

[Chen]

I actually love this change, as it does a great deal to reign in caster supremacy and to limit the amount of buffs/summons/whatever else the caster has to track, which ate up a lot of time at the table back in high level 3.X. To each their own, naturally, but for me and my group this has been a godsend!

The problem I have with the concentration mechanic is that it makes buffing your allies (even temporarily) much more onerous. If I have a Black Tentacles grappling some opponents and a different one takes to the air, I can't buff my fighter with Fly to go take him out without releasing everything on the ground. Seems like this just makes buffing allies much less likely since the battlefield control or self-buffs will come first in priority.

[Ferrin33]

The problem I have with the concentration mechanic is that it makes buffing your allies (even temporarily) much more onerous. If I have a Black Tentacles grappling some opponents and a different one takes to the air, I can't buff my fighter with Fly to go take him out without releasing everything on the ground. Seems like this just makes buffing allies much less likely since the battlefield control or self-buffs will come first in priority.

It just means you need to make choices.

Personally I think the worst part about 5e is the saving throws in your off-stats which don't increase as you level.

Everything else I love about it but if I really had to choose one thing it would have to be the backgrounds. For people new to roleplaying it adds a lot of depth to their characters and helps them think of things themselves, it draws them in further.