I'm just not all that excited by 5e

[Unbeliever]

There's nothing like the 3.5 "But this book said this was fine. And it's my choice. Excel said so. So did the internet" stuff in 5th. Or rather, it's still being gathered. Come aboard and help.

RP reasons, DM approval, campaign style, game-world, all come way before splat-books or even core rulebooks in 5th. Or internet thingies.

I feel like I'm going to repeat this till the day I die.  How is this a 3E thing?  Is there really some story out there in the world that gamers only became a hidebound fractious lot willing to argue till the wee hours over a minor rules thing b/c of 3E D&D? 

I personally only have about 1000 counterexamples to this.  It was ever thus.  1E D&D was filled with all sorts of asinine rules arguments, I'm sure.  And, it's not like baroque combos came about in 3E.  They were present and popular in AD&D.  They were just confined to basements and garages and gaming stores and not out on the web. 

It's not 3.5/PF levels of broken, but they tend to end up as a librarian's exercise on cross-referencing books and pretending you don't have a DM, a game-world or a gaming group to play in. Those systems are absolutely busted on splat. 5th just doesn't assume any of it's kosher, regardless of how official the source is. Hell, put whatever you want on the internet. If your DM says it's cool, then it is. But your playgroup may not be able to use entire tracts from the PHB if your DM doesn't like it. This is the official rule in 5th.

I can't tell, is this a selling point?  I mean, this was the official rule in 3E (and literally every other system I can think of).  It's even got a name, Rule 0.  Every time I see this trotted out it strikes me as just sheer laziness on the part of WotC.  If a game designer tells me "hey, you just ... ummm figure out how this all fits together, ok" my first response is "then what the hell do I need you for?"  At that point, we're not even talking about a system anymore, we're just judging the value of my gaming compadres.  That value happens to be uniformly high, but WotC and 5E had nothing to do with that. 

Furthermore, how does this to play out in practice?  We've all played games where DMs use house rules.  We all do it, and we are better when we do it explicitly.  When those house rules are arbitrary, silly, or have terrible unintended consequences, we criticize those DMs.  I cannot imagine that I would feel differently if the DM was able to point to a passage in a book from the hallowed halls of WotC that says "it's ok if DMs do this."  Dumb rules are still dumb, regardless of their imprimatur.

P.S. (with snark):  wait, if the "officialness" of a source isn't important, and the rule that says that is from an "official" source, then that rule is optional, too ...

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... We're getting splat, and it's WotC/3rd Party splat, soon. More context, more rules, more stuff.

And minmax will roar    with every little stupid f'ed up thing in them. And we're still finding dumb stuff in what we've got in 5th so far ...

"sings": 
I got the eye Wildshape of the tiger, the fire
Dancing through the +1 fire
'Cause I am a champion Character Optimize
and you're gonna hear me us roar

stutter compulsion
st'stutter complusion

[sambojin]

Ahhhh, those good old, poorly thought out, late night rants. Heheheh.

Nah. Rule 0 isn't a 3E thing only, but I have noticed that with the sheer amount of splat available, many players seem to come into campaigns as though it doesn't exist.

It's a playgroup thing though, not an edition thing. It happens in all TTRPGs.

I did feel 3E ended up with too much "bloat" though. To offer your players interesting options, the ones they wanted, did become a nightmare sometimes. But you could have perfectly good campaigns with just basic rules, or only a splat or two.

It's probably my experiences with the two systems so far. I played a fair bit of 2nd and 3E, as a PC and DM, and only a bit of 5th.

5th has so far seemed lighter and easier to run, and even the poorer choices don't necessarily ruin a character/group/campaign. The playgroups also seem to approach it from a slightly different angle. Rule 0 is very much in effect from the word go, because it has to be. The rules aren't exactly that tightly worded or definite. This may or may not be a good thing. But it makes players far more forgiving in many ways, with everyone just there for fun, rather than for rules debates.

I do think it also stems from the character creation process. People get slightly more invested in the RP side of things, even at level 1, even when they're looking for and planning for the power options. This makes stuff go more smoothly for some reason. Characters feel more rounded, even when the game mechanics aren't. It provides reasons for actions and situations, that the entire group can understand straight away, so there's less "because I'm chaotic" and more "because I'm a sage". It's easier for some reason.

It's just my opinion of it though. I liked 2nd, 3E, 3.5 and 5th. There's no better or worse system out of them, I just like 5th's flavour right now. It seems "friendlier", even when a lot of that comes from it being more poorly written.

[LordBlades]

The only thing that 5e does differently regarding Rule 0 is that it makes it obvious from the get-go you won't be able to play without it.

A system like 3.5, where the ruleset is relatively complete starts the players off with the assumption everything will work by the book unless explicitly stated otherwise.

A system like 5e makes it abundantly clear from the first read you will need DM intervention to play, because rules for a variety of stuff are either lacking or are incomplete and/or unclear.

[Nifft]

The only thing that 5e does differently regarding Rule 0 is that it makes it obvious from the get-go you won't be able to play without it.

A system like 3.5, where the ruleset is relatively complete starts the players off with the assumption everything will work by the book unless explicitly stated otherwise.

A system like 5e makes it abundantly clear from the first read you will need DM intervention to play, because rules for a variety of stuff are either lacking or are incomplete and/or unclear.

The funny thing is, 3.x requires the same DM decisions, it just hides the DM's decisions behind some scaffolding.

3.x asks the DM, is this a simple lock, or a superior lock, or something in between? What it means is: hey DM, set the DC.

5e asks the DM to set the DC as easy, impossible, or something in between. The DCs are the same for all skills, and the DCs can stay the same over the course of a 20 level campaign. IMHO this is a big deal and very good, since I like the world to exist independently of the plot requirements.

5e doesn't demand that all locks become Epic Planar Adamantine Spellproof Padlock Golems in order for the Rogue's skill to remain relevant.

[Amechra]

5e doesn't demand that all locks become Epic Planar Adamantine Spellproof Padlock Golems in order for the Rogue's skill to remain relevant.

If you can make those thing, why would you ever build any other kind of lock?

[awaken_D_M_golem]

1e and 2e are "worse systems" as far as having No System at all.
Clearly people play (-ed) the game, with lots of fun and fun+ 
even without anything resembling real game maths.

The reports of people asking Gygax about :
how does this dinky little rule work with that dinky little rule
and kaboom happened, are more than anecdotal.

The dragonsfoot site has a 1e combat system that tries
to work out the rules of combat, called ADDICT.
It ditched psionics altogether.  I'm still bummed about that.

[Nifft]

5e doesn't demand that all locks become Epic Planar Adamantine Spellproof Padlock Golems in order for the Rogue's skill to remain relevant.

If you can make those thing, why would you ever build any other kind of lock?

If you make too many, they unionize and form a robot communist utopia, and eventually your plane gets annexed by Mechanus.

[stanprollyright]

5e doesn't demand that all locks become Epic Planar Adamantine Spellproof Padlock Golems in order for the Rogue's skill to remain relevant.

If you can make those thing, why would you ever build any other kind of lock?

Money.

I don't have the best locks in existence on my house. I also don't have the nicest computer or the fastest internet connection or the biggest TV. Those things exist and some people have them, it doesn't mean everyone has them simply because there's a better version available somewhere.

[Nytemare3701]

The only thing that 5e does differently regarding Rule 0 is that it makes it obvious from the get-go you won't be able to play without it.

A system like 3.5, where the ruleset is relatively complete starts the players off with the assumption everything will work by the book unless explicitly stated otherwise.

A system like 5e makes it abundantly clear from the first read you will need DM intervention to play, because rules for a variety of stuff are either lacking or are incomplete and/or unclear.

The funny thing is, 3.x requires the same DM decisions, it just hides the DM's decisions behind some scaffolding.

3.x asks the DM, is this a simple lock, or a superior lock, or something in between? What it means is: hey DM, set the DC.

5e asks the DM to set the DC as easy, impossible, or something in between. The DCs are the same for all skills, and the DCs can stay the same over the course of a 20 level campaign. IMHO this is a big deal and very good, since I like the world to exist independently of the plot requirements.

5e doesn't demand that all locks become Epic Planar Adamantine Spellproof Padlock Golems in order for the Rogue's skill to remain relevant.

I feel that there is an important distinction to make here. DM input is not always Rule 0. Rule 0 is when the DM alters the existing rules. When an adventure path calls for a locked door, the DM has a list of different lock DCs to choose from. That's the purview and normal job of a DM. He decides what kind of challenge the door poses in a vacuum. It's when the DM changes the DC to make it a challenge for the rogue that you enter Rule 0 territory.

[Nifft]

I feel that there is an important distinction to make here. DM input is not always Rule 0. Rule 0 is when the DM alters the existing rules. When an adventure path calls for a locked door, the DM has a list of different lock DCs to choose from. That's the purview and normal job of a DM. He decides what kind of challenge the door poses in a vacuum. It's when the DM changes the DC to make it a challenge for the rogue that you enter Rule 0 territory.

There is no Rule 0 invoked anywhere in my post.

Did you mean to quote someone else?

I'm talking about how the exact same judgement call must be made by a DM in either system.

[Nytemare3701]

I feel that there is an important distinction to make here. DM input is not always Rule 0. Rule 0 is when the DM alters the existing rules. When an adventure path calls for a locked door, the DM has a list of different lock DCs to choose from. That's the purview and normal job of a DM. He decides what kind of challenge the door poses in a vacuum. It's when the DM changes the DC to make it a challenge for the rogue that you enter Rule 0 territory.

There is no Rule 0 invoked anywhere in my post.

Did you mean to quote someone else?

I'm talking about how the exact same judgement call must be made by a DM in either system.

I quoted both of you because that judgment call can be Rule 0 or just a simple DM decision. It just depends on the context and intent. If the DM is choosing easy/difficult off of a predefined list that doesn't take the player's abilities into account, he's not invoking Rule 0. It becomes a problem when the system makes scaling to the player an integral part of the system itself (see the skill check DCs in 4e, where the DCs go up for the SAME TASK as you level)

Maybe I'm entirely off base on this conversation. I'm tired.

[Nifft]

I quoted both of you because that judgment call can be Rule 0 or just a simple DM decision. It just depends on the context and intent. If the DM is choosing easy/difficult off of a predefined list that doesn't take the player's abilities into account, he's not invoking Rule 0. It becomes a problem when the system makes scaling to the player an integral part of the system itself (see the skill check DCs in 4e, where the DCs go up for the SAME TASK as you level)

Maybe I'm entirely off base on this conversation. I'm tired.

Rule 0 is when the DM changes the rules to suit his game.

This is not about changing any rules.

This is just the bare minimum effort that a DM must put in to do his job.

Like, telling the players that there's a door and a room and some orcs in the room is NOT Rule 0, it's just the DM making some decisions ("wall here, door there, three orcs, and one pie").

A DM making decisions within the rules of the game is not Rule 0.

Every edition of D&D has demanded that the DM make a whole bunch of decisions.

My point is that the DCs in 5e are exactly the same DM decision as the DCs in 3.5e, except 3.5e hid the decision under a thin layer of fluff.

[Strill]

Have less spell statistics, use psionics ML defaults without telling you that's what it is

Is this a problem?

have all the broken core spells (knock, rope trick, etc) without the cool ones (resilient sphere)

Rope Trick and Knock have been nerfed. Rope Trick lasts for one hour, and Knock makes a loud noise that alerts everything nearby.  Resilient Sphere is still in the book.

Have base classes with dead levels!

There are no dead levels. You're mistaken. If a class doesn't get an explicit class feature, it's because they get a new spell level.

Enjoy more uneven spell progressions!

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Let's plagerize whole sentences word for word from random 3e books (MotP ...) and make you rebuy what you already bought!

Do you have a problem with 5e keeping some aspects of 3e?  Would you rather it have nothing in common with 3e?

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

The discussion went pretty much the way I expected. I will say that "they haven't finished it yet" isn't a good excuse for a on-sale system. Core 3e seemed far more ... playable. I am curious how far 5e has to go before we have characters with stats in the 40s.

Welcome to the boards Strill! In order:
I find myself wondering about how to adjudicate the missing spell stats (I assume there are defaults buried somewhere; I didn't look very hard). I do prefer that a system is honest about what it is presenting: "We are taking the psionics system from Third Edition and simplifying it. If you love Psionics in 3e, you'll be okay with our new casting mechanics."
Knock+silence?
I don't find a +stat or +attack iteration a full class feature. I'm used to getting those weak things for free...
Uneven means not even, especially when compared to another thing. Spell progressions refers to the spell learning tables. Uneven spell progressions are ... not equal! See all the arguments as to why Paladin casting was worthless in 3e
Again, I like quoted sources. I'm not a big anti-self-plagurizer kind of person, but it still strikes me as atleast lazy.

[Amechra]

To be completely frank, the concept of spells scaling by sticking more oomph in them isn't unique to 3e Psionics by any means. Would you have them say "We are taking BAB and the save bonuses from 3e and condensing them. If you love how those worked in 3e, you'll be okay with our new Proficiency mechanic!"

I have a strong suspicion that if 3e and 5e were swapped (so 5e was published before 3e, with corresponding name changes), you'd be complaining about how verbose the new edition is, how all the spell are so static, and how broken it is that you get automatic stat and attack boosts.

I mean, you are under no obligation to like 5e -it hasn't set my loins on fire, to be honest. But I feel you are seeing problems where there really aren't any, thanks to some preconceptions you happen to have.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

The 5e spell scaling mechanic is 3e Psionics with the 2x-1 hard maths done already.
'Course simpler is better, and forcing a small "no more whining about psionics" is (x)_______ .

Rope Trick now gets a whole set of Short Rest party recharges attached to it.

" ... loins ... "
Crowd source 5e Marillith pics for the win.
That 4th arm is more man-eating, than my kitty avatar's Tail.
Oh yeah, she's got Advantage on that check, you better believe it.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

you'd be complaining about how verbose the new edition is, how all the spell are so static, and how broken it is that you get automatic stat and attack boosts.

...preconceptions you happen to have.

Fair enough. But you're missing where I'm coming from. If the editions are swapped, I would instead enjoy the verbosity but dislike the variation (seriously its a pain in the ass to sort my 4000+ spell entry excel document 3 different ways because I want a certain combination of spell statistics but I have to look through 300 rows because they vary slightly rather than be regularized). I am not sure I follow the 'static' comment. I would enjoy the auto stat and attack boosts, because buffed mundanes are good. Instead though, I'd be complaining about what I have always complained: 3.5's spells are teh brokenzors.

But feel free to outline why I should like the proficiency mechanic or where are the 'default' spell statistics are.

[TenaciousJ]

The hardest part of getting new players into 3.5 is getting them adjusted to all the different numbers.  4e is guilty of this too from my limited experience as a player.  Different save DCs on every spell level, base attack bonus, base saves, skill ranks, etc. are all neat for customization, but they slow down play badly for people who are not familiar with the system and their new characters.  Proficiency simplifies all that.  For someone who runs games in a public place with a wide variety of players, the simplicity is a godsend.  Proficiency simplified the learning curve to the point games get moving with minimal time spent teaching new people which numbers to use for their actions.

5e is the "create new players" edition.  3.5 and 4e did not really pull that off.

[Libertad]

I feel like I'm going to repeat this till the day I die.  How is this a 3E thing?  Is there really some story out there in the world that gamers only became a hidebound fractious lot willing to argue till the wee hours over a minor rules thing b/c of 3E D&D? 

Yes.  There's a viewpoint that 3E D&D promoted player empowerment at the expense of the DM by codifying more and more things into rules.

There's also the fact that Frank Trollman was a big name in 3.X circles for a time, and he and many folks the Gaming Den had an annoying tendency to deride even light DM Fiat as tyrannical or "Magical Tea Party" and start flame wars on other forums.

5E and its "natural language" is viewed as a return to leaving more things up to DM Fiat when the rules are unclear.  Which is why it's so appealing to the OSR.

On another level, I find it amusing that 5th Edition, which has a lot of 3Eisms, was successfully sold to many OSR gamers.

Personally, 5th hasn't really grabbed me for several reasons:

One is the free Basic rules packet didn't have anything substantially unique to draw me to it that other Editions and retroclones can't provide me. 

Second is the fact that buying the 3 corebooks will set me back $90, and I don't want to spend that much money on a game I'm not as keen to try out.

Thirdly is the fact that for quite some time Mearls and co. ignored complaints about two design consultants who said and done really nasty things to other people who didn't deserve it, including several peole who I like and respect, so I can't play 5E without feeling uncomfortable about this. 

Fourth is the fact that the Edition not greatly designed in places, like a return to unbalanced martial/caster divides that 4th tried to go away from.

Fifth is the lack of interest so far in non-Forgotten Realms settings.

Sixth is a fanbase who gets really teed off when you get rapid-shooting crossbowmen or warlords or other cool non-magic things.

Yes, I realize that the PF fandom mirrors the last point of contention in places, but at least they have Path of War.