D&D 5e is the best D&D edition so far.

[TrueWarlord真の武]

D&D 5e is a great RPG, it's way more balanced than AD&D, D&D 3.0 or 3.5 will ever be (4 edition is super balanced, to a point it's not fun anymore).

As someone that is playing since the first GROW D&D game, and DMing for over 19 years already, I can safely say that D&D 5e is far superior. I playtest D&D next and been playing D&D 5e since the release.

Also, I want to point out that AD&D was not good at all, it was SUPER COOL when it first came out, the first AD&D edition I remember when we got it, god me and my friends we played the heck of it. But NOWADAYS we all know it's not a great system at all, even 3.0 is far better than AD&D.

Thac0 is a terrible mechanic and D20 system was an obvious upgrade. Also, AD&D was not balanced at all, classes leveling and getting stuff in different paces made the game very unbalanced and hard for DMs to keep players engagement since encounters often had bad results.

D&D 5e is by now the most successful edition ever. Critical Role streaming D&D sessions on Twitch and getting more views than Shroud and ASMONGOLD playing the very popular PC games of our generation. That is NOT a coincidence.

I mean c'mon, in what cave you guys are hiding all this time.

If you never played D&D 5e try not to voice how good or bad it is. Because you know, you simply lack any empirical experience to judge the system.

[mr.miffmiff]

Depends on what you want to do. It may be fine at what it does, but too many people try to get it to do things it's not meant for. This is a matter for debate in the RPG community but I'm firmly in the camp that game design matters and you shouldn't have to hack a game in extreme ways to get it to work the way you want.

The OSR is popular for a reason. If I wanted to play an OSR style adventure, I wouldn't play 5e; I'd play OD&D, B/X, retroclones thereof, or other OSR games. If I wanted to play a narrative-focused game with little to no combat I'd not play D&D or any direct derivative thereof at all.

Honestly, most people these days would probably have more fun with Dungeon World. Or even Savage Worlds if they want something a bit crunchier.

[LordSith]

I played BG1&2 and it was the only rules of D&D I have known.
When NWN2 came, I played it but never invested much time in the rules: I loved the story but at the time, I had no time to invest in it; then came Dragon age origins and 2, not D&D rules but I took time to get the rules; then pillars of eternity 1&2 and DOS1&2.
Then pathfinder: I found the rules hard to get, but I played both game, the first for 500h, the second for 1200 h (and I'm still waiting to start my 6th campaign). I don't very much "like" the rules compared to Ad&D, but I like the games a lot, their story, the 6th players group.

(To be fully clear, I played 2 sessions of 3.5th ed in 2009 but found it very uninspiring and left the table at the time - which was with friends with whom I already play - and still play - the ars magica rpg, which is another rpg with a bigger and better magic system, more flexible and free.)

This is my first contact with D&D 5edition.

At first i didn't like it: no feeling of progression, no clarity about what my class is available to give me, am I good at hitting things? what are my "hit" bonuses as a human warrior (my "first stereotype" kind of character to get in touch with new rules in games like this)? is the stat15+2 "normal", "superior" for strength? what would I attain at higher level? like 20? 30? what are the levels giving? there is no "progression table" compared to pathfinder games so it was a bit disappointing to have to do choices without knowing.

Then I levelled up and was very disappointed with the pacing, the missing feeling of "getting new things to do".

But the system is bit by bit entering. I still not very much "love" it, but I like its perks, its balance, its simplicity.

What I personaly find totally lacking in the game (outside the flaws of the game, which for the most part are already preasent in DoS2 like the quest log not clear compared to the baldur's gate 2 one), is a simple tutorial or example fight.

For example, after 35hours (and the start of what i would call act 2 even if I'm not sure - and do not wish to be sure! no spoiler please -) I'm not sure I understand if an "advantage" in battle is a bonus to hit, or like in skill tests, a "two dice are cast, best one is used".
This kind of things would have been normally explained in an examplary fight as tutorial.

I agree that Ad&D was not balanced. It was the main purpose of it: if you did a warrior, you did it for the RP. If you played a mage, the RP was joined by sheer power.

What I hope is that the max level (12 according the newsletter? that feels very low... but again the balance may be "okay" so that 12 in 5th is like 20th in Ad&D or 3.5 ?) will give me the same feeling of progression as the journey in BG1 to ToB did. Or maybe BG3 is the first part of a bigger thing; i'm not sure, having not participed in the EA due to my desire to play only the full game in one go and not read most newsletter even if I get them because I don't want to be spoiled.

Another thing about the classes: I have taken hours to understand that "minor magic" is the "classic round attack" for caster when they have no other thing to do, and are not just a way to not waste a round: those minor magic tricks actually may do damage and hit the target (compared to 3.5).

[Rosa]

This thread was quite old before the recent post, so we're locking it to prevent confusion.