Love the game, but damn does 5E suck

[EnStorEn]

3 or 3,5 is so much better it isn't even funny. So much flavour has gone out the window. I know 5e is basically WoC trying to cater to everyone, but it really feels like it is far too simplistic for its own good.

[[TG] zac]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Alealexi:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von TG zac:

In an ideal system I would go with the combat of 5e but with a few modifications

1: Separate the levels feats and ASI's happen at (3rd for feats, 4th for ASI's, more feats would also need to be added)

2: Separate what skills a person is trained in from class/race choice (adds a ton of customization options and takes stuff off rails)

3: Add back some of the base classes/prestige classes that were taken out (Duskblade, dragon shaman, beguiler etc...

That would keep the rules bloat down and the 5e combat feel but add a ton of character building options.

Wasn't Duskblade just a variant of the hexblade, eldritch knight, college of swords, or bladesinger in 5e?
Feats are still being added to 5e. You can't say that 3.5 had all the feats it had at launch? Feats were still gradually added like they are in 5e.

As far as prestige classes I would prefer for them to be accessed in lower levels like they were in 5e. There are more still being added and I bet that they would all not be added in the launch of a new edition. You would still have to wait will they are balanced out.

Duskblade was different in that it delivered spells through weapon attacks much as the arcane archer delivered them through bow attacks. (duskblade spell list consisted almost entirely of damaging spells or spells that could knock enemies prone.

The Beguiler was much the same way, only it focused on enchantments, transmutation & divination magic.

The fact their spell schools was limited gave them a draw back since they could melee well (not quite as good as a fighter) and use spells (not quite as good as a wizard)

The fact that they all delivered spells is not something that has ever been added back to 5e and really wouldn't work with the way attacks are done now as it would make wizard/sorcerer and fighter cross classing far too powerful.

The same is true of the dragon shaman.
Out of all the classes it was likely the most unique as it combined aspects of Paladin, bard, and numerous others. (had a touch heal, dragons breath attack and quite a few auras that could boost various aspects of a party depending which you had active.
Depending on what your stats & feats were it could be a front line damage dealer, healer or buffer.

In the end these classes really need to be their own classes or at least conglomerated into something new that isn't attached to pre existing classes.

[[TG] zac]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Alealexi:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Noobasaur_The_Rex.TTV:

while that is true, the "Rule Bloat" allows you for more freedom and chances to grow and expand your character into more then what the players handbook says, plus it has the real only book i care about, the Secret College Of Necromancy. so my opinion is biased

Rules bloat gives freedom? I see it as it restricts due complexity. I see no one use the grapple rule in pathfinder. There are many rules that just aren't used because it is too annoying to use. That is when you need to cut on rules bloat.

Maybe you need to look around for more groups then.
I know a few people who use the grapple system in pathfinder.

One of my friends has a brawler he built specifically for using it.
Guy trips an enemy then the entire party kicks the crap out of them.

[Something completely different]

You have rules for grappling in 5E as well.
Also, if you want to do that in 5E battlemaster fighter with the trip manoever is your class.

5E is streamlined and easy to get into but it still has quite some vareity if you're willing to dig in deeper.

[Mopar]

I agree with the OP, 5E is just to watered down to be fun. Personally I prefer 2e

[jungle.james]

You know what ruleset is pretty cool? MYFAROG.

[Soft Lockpick]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Streeja:

I think 5e lets you insert house rules without breaking the game a little easier. Am I right or it is just me?

I don't think so. Because of built in constraints on stats and the like house rules have more opportunities to break the balance.

[davidagnome]

Beamdog is still expanding or polishing content for Neverwinter, if you must D&D3e.

5e reminds me more of AD&D, fwiw. More interactivity and imagination, less min/max shenanigans and useless dump stats than 3e (we do power cleave or whirlwind, right?)

I wish someone adapted The One Ring RPG as a party, turn-based RPG. That'd be the bees knees despite its seeming lack of complexity.

[brokoreus]

One thing Ive never really liked about most RPGs is the endless number of feats and special abilities. When juggling numbers of NPCs, a DM especially has a hard time remembering all of the special attacks the characters can do. It takes a lot to remember them all and what they do, and thus results in looking up every little thing.

I really like 5e. SO much easier to manage, and I agree that it is plenty versatile...plus levelling up doesn't take an hour per character...and two weapon fighting doesn't suck like it has in past editions. I dont need to get Ambidextrous 1 and 2, Two Weapon Fighting 1, 2, 3, or whatever it was, It took forever to get a decent two weapon fighter.

[narokusama]

resurrecting old complaints

[Panic Fire]

People tend to forget that a lot of the "Bloat" of pathfinder and 3.5 was the monster manual. So many monster reskins to fit every single CR encounter because monsters couldn't scale well. 5e fixed most of that.

[narokusama]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Panic Fire:

People tend to forget that a lot of the "Bloat" of pathfinder and 3.5 was the monster manual. So many monster reskins to fit every single CR encounter because monsters couldn't scale well. 5e fixed most of that.

Honestly that is true till level 9 or level 11 for players, action economy is very player centric

[NerdExtrodinare]

*Walks in, sees the bait, walks out.*

[dolby]

This is why you don't port rules but dev's keep on trying, go figure.. Not like the other option is doing any better...

All the system for a amazing epic rpgs were already made in multiple rpgs scattered over the years. Someone just needs to collect what was good and package it with nice lore - setting... Hard to do if you get 2 crpgs a year at best and all those from small studios...

[Rhoken The Dragon]

5e is necessary if today you want a D&D game that many people will play easily and with love.

If you use the older version, not only the developing of the game will be more long and tedious, but also you cut a good cake piece of players which they will have not few troubles playing the game and understanding the rules.

5e with some gameplay modification is more easily to develope and for new players to play this game.

[avaririot]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Panic Fire:

People tend to forget that a lot of the "Bloat" of pathfinder and 3.5 was the monster manual. So many monster reskins to fit every single CR encounter because monsters couldn't scale well. 5e fixed most of that.

Pathfinder:Kingmaker is right godawful mess of a game with extreme levels of not fun micromanagement. Pausing every 2 seconds to activate a bunch of +1 advantages on 6 characters is pure hell. It's a system that makes your tabletop more exciting but has no business in a video game. Compare that to POE's made for video game system where you pause to micromanage abilities that actually do stuff.

As for 5e, I dunno but in Solasta it feels perfectly adequate. BG3 has an incomplete feel to just about everything from the dialogue to the combat. I've put it down for now, it would be unfair to judge this game until it is MUCH closer to completion.