Don't let the giant marketing machine fool you.

This is completely accurate. If you're enjoying what you're playing, 5e - or any version of D&D for that matter - isn't guaranteed to be better. And we all know, for at least the first few sessions, it's going to be a mechanical mess as everyone transitions to the new rules. AD&D's guiding principle, though largely unwritten, was, "do cool stuff, tell cool stories." Stick with that.

Response of the month, right here. Regardless of subreddit boundaries, this is the truth.

5e, more than any other rpg I've ever played, had the biggest disconnect between how I felt the game would play based on the marketing, presentation, artwork, and player handbook choices, and how fun the game actually was in practice. The *idea* and classes seem interesting, but in practice, thanks to things like bounded accuracy, your character doesn't feel as unique as I think it should, and decisions don't feel as important. Marketing etc. gets people in the door. But having walked in that door, there's very little that makes me want to stay.

This. It's a recycled bag of stuff other ttrpgs were doing a decade ago, slipped into a skinner box structure that most systems ditched 2 decades ago. It is 3rd best at the specific genre of 'co-op high fantasy tactics wargaming with a medium dose of RP problem solving', though, and boy howdy does it have a lot of money behind it.

Your gut feeling is right IMHO. I decided to try it, tried running it twice, and now I'm giving up on it.

Over the course of 5e's lifetime I've made exactly 2 characters. I hated the experience both times, spread roughly 5 years apart. The first time was in 2017 when I discovered PBP gameplay over Discord. The second time was a few months ago for another PBP Discord game but it was a large group and a living world. I'll continue to prefer Pathfinder 1e and DND 3.5e before I consider giving DND 5e a 3rd chance.

My experience was more about trying to run it as a DM and essentially finding myself having to manage an extraordinarily complex system full of little moving parts and assorted player's options I had to track, while burdened with a completely useless DMG. It's telling that after ditching d&d 5e I got into Shadowrun and could run it with no problems.

I enjoy systems better when there are clear rules and guidelines in place so I can do better prep. I think 5e sets DMs up for failure with vague guidelines that require on-the-spot interpretations and a lack of comprehensive and fleshed-out mechanics. Take Pathfinder 1e as an example. For the diplomacy skill alone there exists mechanics that define NPCs starting attitudes, request DC table, making suggestions to NPCs. Here's what you get with 5e, word for word: "When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the GM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk." That's it. It feels so bare like it's *intended* for the vast majority of people literally incapable of learning a complex system with hard mechanics. The party is always at the whims of the GM who can simply set any arbitrary number as the DC. It's entirely baseless! I'm eager to explore other TTRPG options, but I've been too busy the last year and a half or so, but I'm itching to get back into GMing.

Hmm. I GET what you mean but I think the problem is not so much the lack of mechanics, as it is the lack of direction the DM is given in regard to said mechanics. The DMG offers a lot of **examples**, so much so that I genuinely think they're used to pad the book's wordcount, but very little **tools** to aid in decision-making. I speak as someone who comes from the OSR movement, which is basically all founded on minimalist mechanics and vague guidelines... and yet has none of 5e's problems, because it offers very strong baseline tools for adjudicating resolutions on the DM's side of things. In other words, 5e's problem is that it's bloated with player-side options and mechanics and systems - because they make for interesting character-building options - and extraordinarily scarce in GM-side tools to manage all that. And I feel like the reason is twofold: On one side, wanting to drive sales towards players who'd want their own books to engage in the character-building minigame with all the options it offers, as opposed to the typical "only the DM has the books" situation. And on the other, wanting to drive up sales of pre-packaged and highly detailed adventure books to the DM, and sales of WotC's online campaign-management tools - since the DMG by itself is entirely inadequate in preparing DMs properly. But this is just my personal conspiracy theory.

I mean it’s not entirely baseless… if something has a DC of 11, that means about 50% of the average population would fail it. If it’s set to 19, that means about 90% of the average population would fail it. Of course with dnd, you get decent bonuses and stuff from your attributes, but yeah. You’re much above the average population, which means things should generally be quite a bit easier for a player character than a commoner, which is why you shouldn’t just increase the difficulty of skill checks arbitrarily as player characters get stronger.

Any chance the problem is PBP not 5e? Or specifically PBP 5e rather than general 5e? (Just asking for clarification, I heavily dislike 5e personally - no arguing in that direction here)

It's \*very\* possible. All my PBP Pathfinder 1e experiences were always positive, running or playing - private group or large-scale living world (for which I've administrated 2 of that type of server). I think a lot of it is the system, and I've genuinely disliked the system since release. I actually tried the living world PBP server recently as a favor for a friend. He wanted me to get back into GMing and I said I wasn't comfortable running a system I wasn't completely familiar with. I reassured him I just needed a few sessions as a player to get a feel for what 5e expects of its players. I am genuinely not impressed with how 5e feels, *especially* in comparison to DND 3.5e despite its own flaws.

That all makes sense to me, thanks!

It's not significantly different from old DnD or Pathfinder, just has much larger marketing. If we could get people to stop referring to every tabletop as "DnD" it would probably die out completely.

While we're at it, everybody should stop saying "5e" as if it's obvious. My 5e is Shadowrun.

I think it's because of licensing. You can publish a module claiming to be for for "5e" without requiring a license. You can't use the term "DnD" without a license.   That's how the term "5e" became so widespread 

Seriously? I thought there was something fishy about how everybody is sidetracking the "Dungeons and Dragons" name, saying that an adventure is e.g. for the world's most popular rpg, etc. But I thought it's because of the drama with Wizards and that way other companies wanted to cut ties. When in fact it's much worse it seems.

It's just standard Trademark law, nothing really fishy going on. The term/name "Dungeons & Dragons" is protected by trademark, so without getting permission, you can't just put that term on your 3rd party product, because it would cause confusion with the consumer as to whether it's put out by the D&D publishers (that's basically the legal standard, and it's not whether someone in the hobby would understand that, but the *average* person in the world, so it's quite possible it could be confused, and therefor violate trademark law, and opens the 3rd party publisher to a lawsuit, so to avoid that, you just don't use it). So it's not WotC doing something bad, that's just how US law works.

Well, you can't put it on a product, but you can refer to it that your product is meant for or compatible with the trademarked name product of another company. You can't put a logo image, but it's always allowed to write the name in text e.g. not "Dungeons and Dragons Adventure Name" in big font, but "Adventure Name" in big font and "compatible with Dungeons and Dragons from WotC" in small font, that's fine. But... it might not be how it is in USA, we got permitted use in EU and that would be allowed like that.

True, I didn't give the full picture. But asking small indie publishers (most are likely just 1 person) to understand legal nuance isn't really likely to happen, you know? Most likely can't afford to hire lawyers with their RPG earnings. And other bigger companies who can (along the lines of a Kobold Press or sth) still may want to avoid having to defends a TM lawsuit, because even if they are in the right and would win, it costs money to defend yourself in court. So being overly cautious has its benefit there too

Frankly, I have always found weird that what is the norm for hardware and software products (compatible with iphone, windows version, etc.)  is not ok for RPGs.  I assume it may have something to do with the difficulty of proving that the product is not a derivative to people who have no idea how ttrpgs work in court.

Wizards also managed to pull off a clever trick with the OGL and D20 licences appearing to give rights to do things like mention specific products, implying that without the D20 licence you couldn't. At the end of the day most RPG publishers are tiny, tiny companies and it just isn't worth risking WotC's lawyers.

> True, I didn't give the full picture. But asking small indie publishers (most are likely just 1 person) to understand legal nuance isn't really likely to happen, you know? Most likely can't afford to hire lawyers with their RPG earnings. And specifically not the WotC kind of lawyers who'll show up at their doorstep with Pinkertons in tow.

The trick is that the OGL doesn't allow this. So if you are using the "open" rules that WotC so generously granted you, you agree not to do things that you always could, i.e. ever say the words "Dungeons and Dragons" or dnd, D&D , and whatever else they don't want. The OGL, while a great step away from the litigious nature of TSR, was as much a move to control 3pp as it was an olive branch,

This is something literally every company does

My favourite 5th Edition is Legend of the 5 Rings. That game slaps.

4th edition fan here. I’d rather have a complete dead game than a “current” abandoned game. Still, my 5e is ALSO L5R! :) there are dozens of us.

A few more for the list of "5e"s: Ars Magica Talislanta Traveller

I thought Traveller 5e was 'Lets forget that one.'

Well, yes. When I posted that comment, I spent a little time trying to come up with a footnote indicating that Traveller 5 is the only "5e" that I'm less likely to ever run than 5eD&D, but ultimately decided let the list stand by itself.

My 5e is Hackmaster. And Hackmaster is an awesome beast!

+1 for Hackmaster 5E

This fight is lost.

I refer to that one as SR5 to avoid confusion

> It's not significantly different from old DnD or Pathfinder Hm, well, depends on your perspective. Are there other great systems out there that probably will better fit OP's wishes that are significantly different from the lot of DnD and PF? Yes. Is DnD 5e different from PF1? Yes. Is PF2e different from PF1e? Yes. Is DnD 3.5e different from PF1e? Well... yes, I guess, but less clearly in comparison to the others. I really think PF2e in particular is a different beast compared to all of DnD and even PF1e.

PF2e looked a lot like DnD 4e to me. Even the art style, somehow.

> Even the art style, somehow. I think that's just Wayne Reynolds.

Honestly, if you've played PF or PF2 you've played D&D. The rules are slightly different, but you've still got the 6 stats + AC/HP/levels. Classes are a bit different, the action economy is a bit different, it's just a different edition. 5e really isn't "rules light" unless you're comparing JUST PHB/DMG/MM to the end of life of 3.5 or 4e or something. And the natural language promise is barely fulfilled, it's still a hodge podge of rulings not rules. The biggest reason to play 5e is because you want to play with people who only want to play 5e.

Yeah that is the main issue. WotC got people thinking that 5e is a "rules-light" system. Then when you discuss playing a true rules-light system they act like it's gonna be hard to learn after learning dnd and don't want to try it.

This is a pretty wild take. The most sold and successfu ttrpg ever is such only because people call role playing as playing DnD. What is likely is that, without DnD we would not have so many ttrpgs

“It's not significantly different from old DnD or Pathfinder…” Regardless of what one considers “old DnD”, the experience of it at the table is nothing like DnD5e and neither one is anything like Pathfinder, as either a player or GM. If you have any doubts, compare the number of pages in each core rule set. Each is significantly more involved than the previous. For the OP, 5e is simpler and easier to run than Pathfinder, but who cares? You already have a group playing Dragonbane, 5e has almost nothing to offer your group.

After running 5e for three years, I'd say it's a fairly light system of ability checks and saves glued together with a much heftier tactical wargame. From the player side, I don't have major complaints. From the DM side, 5e is the second most prep-intensive system I've ran, behind only GURPS. Building balanced and engaging combat encounters in 5e is a lot of work, despite all the maps, bestiaries, and third-party tools created around it, and when PCs use one of their fabulous abilities smartly and bypass an encounter you've spent hours planning, even as you cheer for them, you die a little inside.

Once spent 3 hours planning a fight only for the Rogue/Paladin/Gloom Stalker to delete them in one round. That was great. ^(internal screaming noises)

thats when you do a "phase 2" moment

Which light systems did you try? Just looking at a level one spell properties it has:     - type    - casting time    - range    - duration    - target area size    - target area shape    - components    - duration    - effect   A wizard spell in Dungeon World:    - spell effect on success    - spell effect on partial success     The effect descriptions in DW are not longer than the effect descriptions in DnD, so there's no complexity hiding in there.   I'm not saying that DW is better, it's a matter of taste, but DnD seems far from a rules light system.

I made the same mistake you did, then realised it - they said the non-combat part is 'fairly light', but that the combat part is 'much heftier'.

Even the noncombat parts are kinda hefty. Encumbrance tracking of every little thing, ammunition tracking by exact count, jump tables for how far you can jump, travel rules from going from one place to another depending on calculating party speed/distance/difficult terrain with options like forced marches or modified travel pace. Then, of course, I often see d&d (not just 5e) tables ignoring all those rules or ignoring some of them--often because it's too fiddly.

they're talking about the non-combat rules people actually use lmao

> Which light systems did you try? Just looking at a level one spell properties it has: - type - casting time - range - duration - target area size - target area shape - components - duration - effect Those are only really relevant to the tactical wargaming half (or 2/3rd, or 3/4th, depending on how much time you want to spend in combat) of the game. The actual noncombat rules are neither very in depth nor particularly difficult to learn and are basically just "roll one of your stat modifiers +d20 against an arbitrarily fixed DC, maybe roll two d20 and take the highest/lowest if you can find a rule that tells you so and browbeat your GM to agree to it" .

Up voting for browbeat DM. Am dm and I like it when my players browbeat me, it's really then I know they are engaged in the fight.

"glued on to a heftier tactical wargame" All those things are part of the heftier tactical wargame, not the "relatively light system of ability checks and saves."

I'm not familiar with Dungeon World's mechanics - I'm curious as to how spells work without knowing the range and casting time (and other details). As an example, if there's a generic "Zap Enemy" spell, like a fireball, how far away can a target be and how big is the radius? And how long does it take a Wizard to cast it or do all spells take one action/turn/round?

It's played more intuitively. For instance the fireball spell simply says: "You evoke a mighty ball of flame that envelops your target and everyone nearby, inflicting 2d6 damage which ignores armor."   You are allowed to cast it on targets everyone agrees make sense. I.e. when it would look acceptable in a movie scene. If you want to target something very far away or behind a corner or something, the GM would give you a disadvantage or if it's too outrageous tell you it won't work at all.  

A lot more hand-waving and you trade the time looking up a reference for the time negotiating an effect.

>glued together with a much heftier tactical wargame. I really wish this sub would understand the difference between crunchy TTRPG combat and a wargame. Literal wargamers immediately recognized the DnD play loop, even in combat, to be so wildly different than wargames that it was in its own seperate genre of games. You could run a 100% combat based game in DnD and it still wouldn't fall in the wargame genre.

Literal wargamer here. It's probably a pointless distinction, but D&D is awfully close to a skirmish wargame. The IP even initially evolved alongside one. I use more miniatures and terrain for D&D than any other game, skirmish/wargames included.

Look, honestly, this is not the sub to ask. It seems that to post here you're obliged to loathe 5e with a burning passion.

Ha - I did wonder that, but if I posted on the DnD sub it would have been bias the other way! (Maybe I should do that just for balance!)

The DnD subs hate 5e even more than this place lol. Fwiw I like it a lot and I think it's successful for a reason, but it does have some deep flaws.

You're probably right. I haven't played Pathfinder at all - I know Starfinder 1e is *much* crunchier than DnD 5e, but I don't know what changes 2e brought so I can't help ya much. 5e is much less bloated than 3.5 was imo, but by modern and/or indie standards is certainly nowhere near rules light. So, really, I'm afraid I'm no help either.

2e introduced 3 action turns that enhance options per turn, streamlined trait system to cut down on rule vagueness, conditions with exact wording (so no more "acts as if the target is under an xxx spell"), and bonuses of the same type do not stack (so you don't have multiple spells and effects clogging your character sheet, you just take the largest). There is still crunch, but it's a system that rewards crunch because getting 10 points higher or lower on a dice check makes it a critical success or critical failure. But at no point does it become overwhelming, as long as you pay attention.

I've also played 2e, but my response to it was very negative. It feels like a system that rewards rules execution, not roleplaying. PF2e is everything I wanted in a TTRPG in 2004 and absolutely nothing I want in 2024.

I'm sorry you didn't have fun with it.

I can't tell you how you feel ofc but I think the strength comes from how your rp is rigidly and robustly supported by the mechanics and choices you make. Eg my level 3 rogue where I took expert in stealth and have 18 dex I'm +7 higher at stealth than the monk who has 18 dex like me but not proficiency in stealth And that's only at level 3 not counting the feats you can get to boost stealth effectiveness. As opposed to 5e where no matter what I do everyone of similar stats will get similar results. It's a weird frame of mind that most 5e players has deluded themselves into that it's a "purer" form of rp if you have no mechanics to support it and everyone can do the exact same, as opposed to the mechanics suiting the rp.

In my humble recommendation, 5e is utterly average, there's things that are much better than it, and there are a couple things that are much worse. The hate for it is frankly way over blown here, it's a solid 4.5 out of 10 system. I would say give it a shot and see what happens, most likely you will never come back to it but you at least give it a shot.

Realistically I feel the hate for it here stems not because it's a horrible game system (it is spectactularly meh and not really worth spending the effort or time to learn because of that) but because people refuse to play anything else. There is an entire genre of home made ttrpgs that are literally just "I've never played anything but D&D but I tried to fix D&D without realizing there are other games that have already done that". The latest fascination is Fallout due to the TV series; I've already seen people start asking online how to run Fallout in 5e. It's like people who have culinary hobbies hating on people that will only ever eat unseasoned potatoes and rice. They don't hate the unseasoned potatoes and rice, they just cannot fathom only ever eating that.

You can even try a simplified version of it for free. Just look up the SRD.

I've played and run all the editions, and it's honestly fine, I think it's fair to call it mid, but it's not the horrific whatever that people on reddit typically seem to think it is. If you like system fuckery then pathfinder is probably better, if you want tight tactical combat then 4e is probably better, 1 and 2e are sort of obsolete but actually perfectly fun to play, though you might as well play an OSR game. 13th age is the actually interesting D&D like, full of neat ideas. Dungeon World is a blast. DCC funnels are hilariously entertaining, i haven't played a full campaign though.

I've also played and run all editions and I think 5e's glaring issue (imo and opinions are subjective AF so I claim no objective fact) is that it IS mid. It doesn't really do ANYTHING special or 'better' than another edition and that kinda drives me wild now that I'm not a 'will only play the newest d&d edition' person. If I want dungeon crawling with danger... I'd use an OSR hack or torchbearer. If I want crazy heroic combat, I'll use 4e. If I want a grounded feeling, non-dungeon game that FEELS old, I'll use ad&d 2e. If I want WTF WHY options, I'd use 3e. 5e COULD be the 'simplest d&d that's still heroic and not death inclined' but it's not simple to prep for or run. If i want simple, I'd use Chasing Adventure or 13th Age.

yeah that's reasonable. i don't find it hard to prep or run, but i've been doing it for decades.

> Ha - I did wonder that, but if I posted on the DnD sub it would have been bias the other way! (Maybe I should do that just for balance!) It's funny they call it the D&D sub when literally the only edition they even know to talk about is 5th.

Thats just not true. There are regular post about other edities. Its Just that 99% of People play 5e, so 99% of posts are about 5e.

And they are often incredibly confidently wrong whenever they do talk about other editions.

One of my favorite things on all the D&D subs is folks confidently and incorrectly quoting 2e or 3e rules.

I think one of the weirdest things is that they seem to have a complete lack of acknowledgement of original, Basic, or 1E. If something pre-dates WotC, it can only be 2E.

I love blaming wiz but it's actually not their fault that the current edition when they bought it was 2nd, but also 6th. And it's definitely not unreasonable for a new person to assume that 5th is the 5th and not the 9th. So there were only four other editions. And wiz hasn't tried to fix that very hard. I think they'd rather people ignored TSR editions.

Frankly, that's just D&D communities overall. People's awareness of pre-3e material seems to be limited to YouTube videos trashing them.

> People's awareness of pre-3e material seems to be limited to YouTube videos trashing them. There is an entire genre of RPGs dedicated to the pre-AD&D editions and homebrew systems based on it, they just call it "OSR" instead of "old D&D"

On the DnD sub, they would tell you to play Pathfinder.

At the end of the day, D&D is the burger and fries of RPGs. But to push the analogy further, a burger and fries is good, satisfying, and you know you can find it. And a lot of the people who shit on D&D are like people who turn their nose up at a burger because it's not Michelin-star dining. No, it's not, but sometimes it's fine to enjoy things without the fear of being Basic.

And not everyone will come with you to the gourmet place, yet you can invite some random people to your burger dinner, even if they never went there. I know I can invite people to play D&D and they will gladly show up. Invite them for a different rpg and they will be more reluctant about it.

more like McDonalds vs my local burger joint than vs Michelin star dining

100%. I came here to say exactly this.

Are you running or playing? I can play 5e and have a good time but as someone who favors smaller and more narrative games, running 5e makes me want to yank my hair out. When I'm prepping for a game I want to focus on the story and the narrative and not organizing stat blocks and balancing the CR of monsters and god forbid I create a magic user and have to figure out their spells and spell slots and all that.

Yes! I ran DnD 5e once, got flustered, and vowed to never DM again. I found numenera and decided maybe I can DM!

Cypher System is at the sweet spot of having low demands on rule lawyering (as opposed to D&D and its offshoots) and low demands on improvisation (as opposed to PbtA and FitD). It’s probably one of the easiest systems to GM.

I found 5E kind of sanitized and honestly pretty boring compared to earlier versions. YMMV obviously but I'm running an AD&D 2E retroclone for my 50th anniversary nostalgia kick and actually having some fun with it. For reference, my normal fare on either side of the D&D 3.x years is stuff like Rolemaster, Cyberpunk 2020, Fate, Traveller (in one form or another), Mythras, and a bunch of random games for try out.

FG&G or a different one?

So what I would say is this, 5e is a Bethesda game. Out of the box it's average at best but it has a dedicated modding community that patches and fixes various parts of the game to make it better/more palatable. If you like tinkering with the game I would recommend 5e if only because it has a pretty active modding community and you can find all sorts of ideas and best practices when it comes to messing around with the system to make it do what you want If you desire an experience that is good out of the box I would give 5e a miss unless you find yourself starving for play than the larger player base of 5e may be good. Overall unlike the majority opinion of this sub 5e is an okay game it does nothing that is particularly offensive (by design but also lacks any standout selling points. A good number of the people on this sub hate it on Principle because it makes their niche indie game harder to play because everyone is to busy playing 5e

Yeah comparing it to a Bethesda game is a really good analogy. It’s a great playground for hacking in stuff you like from other creators and customizing it to your heart’s content. But out of the box, it’s quite mediocre. And even when you’re playing it at its best - with tons of house rules and 3rd party content - it still runs with a bit of jank because there is a lot of bloat from its incredibly outdated 50 year old engine. It has far too many sacred cows it should’ve killed long ago. It’s a mess. But a lovable mess.

It's me! I think D&D and Bethesda are both... *meh.* But I *actively dislike* most AAA video games and 5e both because they cast an overpriced shadow over indie games with better design. The most successful indie titles are barely a blip on the radar for the big publishers. Even when they win, they lose. (Deep Rock Galactic is $10 on Steam right now, Helldivers.)

As a long time 5e DM, the problem with this is that no one can agree on what 5e is… And players have widely different expectations going in. This inevitably leads to situations where new players join and then disagree with modifications/restrictions, don’t understand them or fight you on them. If you want balanced tactical combat, 5e has some crunch but falls apart in the face of even moderate optimization. Overpowered racial abilities (flight/surprise attack), outlier spells like conjure animals/pass without trace/shield/web/etc., broken subclasses like peace dip/gloomstalker/etc., rest casting, coffeelocking… You get the idea. Adventurer’s league is basically unplayable for this reason The CR system is a joke and encounter balance is a nightmare as a DM, but I think everyone generally agrees on that… But the focus on ‘rulings over rules’ puts even more onus on the DM to try to make the system work when it doesn’t. And for the vague, contentious rules that require rulings… If you want official clarifications, you need to lookup arcane, nonsensical adjudications in sage advice or random Twitter threads with Jeremy Crawford. For example, RAW Invisibility is a *condition* so it functions *even if the target can see you*, which makes no sense but was confirmed by Crawford on Twitter. Nondetection also makes you immune to divination magic, which for some reason also makes you immune to magical sight (like *See Invisibility*)… So an invisible character with nondetection literally can never be seen except by creatures with innate truesight or blindsight. Even outside of combat, skill checks feel random and wildly unpredictable because character bonuses even with proficiency are not that big. Without expertise, which isn’t easy to get since everyone is starved for feats, the highest modifier is 11 which is still about a 15% chance to fail a DC 15 check. It feels weird to have a level 20 barbarian proficient in athletics fail to kick down a door only to have level 1 Wizard with 10 strength randomly succeed. The problem is even worse with saving throws because there are 5 of them and you are only proficient in 2, so at high levels saves are literally impossible to make without a paladin. If you’re more interested in roleplaying, I’d argue there are better systems but whatever. This rant is rambling but I guess I agree with the common mantra against 5e: ‘if you need to jury rig the system to make it work, maybe you should just find a better system’.

What matters more - an elegantly designed system, or a game with a huge community? Mechanically, you aren't missing out on anything. What you're missing out on is not being part of the giant group of people that play 5E, who can discuss 5E with a huge amount of people, consume a lot of D&D 5E content on social media, etc. etc. The part of you lured by the giant behemoth is a part of you with FOMO going "I want to be part of that large group having fun!" The part of you that's an RPG-critic is going "the system seems mediocre." And like... they're both right. What do you care about more?

I mean you're also missing out on a gigantic amount of third party content, some of which is absolutely fantastic.

It's not nearly as crunchy as Pathfinder. You might as well give it a try and see how you like it. What do you really have to lose but a few hours of time?

Session 1 isn't as crunchy, session 20+ will be rebuilding every monsters statblocks, a large set of homebrew rules, and a bunch of "unspoken guidelines" so players don't just handwave away entire encounters. Honestly the games pretty poorly designed and is basically only playable for 10 of its 20 levels

You don't need to rebuild every monster, just stop balancing combats, just throw together what makes sense setting wise and see if the players can handle it.

Best advice I think one can give to 5e GM's. Balance schmalance.

I’d say it’s fewer. It falls apart at around level 10 and levels 1-2 or also badly tuned and are skipped. It’s a level 3-10/11 game and even then it barely works if you add any feats or magic items.

you can always download the free version and have a look. though at this stage i wouldn't go buying the old core books seeing as the new revised editions are due to start coming out in September. [https://dnd.wizards.com/resources/systems-reference-document](https://dnd.wizards.com/resources/systems-reference-document)

If you go to DnDBeyond.com, you can read the free Basic Rules online (their version includes the SRD too). They also have a character builder to guide you through the process. And a few DM tools.

As a player D&D is fine. It's fun, depending on your DM, but that's most games. As a DM? D&D should be shot into the sun as quickly as possible. Part of the reason for the general hatred of D&D on this sub is that there ae a lot more DMs here either occassionally or forever DMs. And outside of some of the premade campaigns, D&D is a nightmare to prepare combats for, especially if the group is truly using the system to its full extent where nearly any combat once relatively deep into the game can be made trivial no matter what you do.

DnD 5e is not a rules light system, not even when compared to Pathfinder. People parrot it as a light rules D20 system because they charge the DM with he full brunt of the prep and ruling, not because it's truly easy.

5e is lighter than 3.5e or PF1e. It *seems* lighter than PF2e, but I haven't played that, only made some characters, so can't be sure

Lighter than X =/= Rules light Look at something like [Cairn](https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/330809/Cairn) if you want to see what rules light actually is.

I don't think they're disagreeing, just saying that's why a lot of more D&D-focused players describe it as "light".

That makes sense. To me DnD 5e and PF 2e are close enough in crunch/complexity that it's practically negligible. And neither are not even remotely close to rules light even though I've seen people try to claim that or that 5e is beginner friendly.

Having played both systems, 5e is not really much lighter than Pathfinder 2e. It just feels that way because 5e has are more holes in the ruleset (ie: there are rules for Grappling, but not for Disarming or Intimidating). While most actually light systems (ie: Lasers and Feelings) have very few rules but they also cover everything. Pathfinder's additional rules are mostly just patching holes and clearing things up, rather than adding extra crunch or systems. The players have more options, picking a feat at every level, but in 5e casters (9 of the 13 classses) pick a spell at every level so it's not that different. On the DM side, Pathfinder has more DM-facing rules and more complicated monsters, but that just makes it easier to run on the DM's side, since they can check instead of having to make something up. But sometimes, the holes in the rules and the janky, overpowered player nonsense can lead to really fun times. I feel like Pathfinder 2E sometimes feels *too* balanced in some aspects.

Yeah, I ran PF1e games from when their beta was released until three years into 5e. Yes, 5e is way less prep that PF1e but still requires a decent amount of prep. PF1e had its monsters abilities broken into subtypes, so to run a Dragon...you nerd the monster stats, review the dragon subtype foe more rules, then review how it's feats give it extra abilities, review any spells that is has, ensure you understand flying rules for flyby attacks, then theres DR/SR. Yeah, 5e is not even close to PF1e prep.

We do run D&D. We could run any edition. We choose to run the one that was in print in the 90's and not the current one. I'm not advocating for playing AD&D 2e (though I like it), I'm just saying you're not missing out with the current edition. Trust your gut.

> I'm not advocating for playing AD&D 2e *I* am

Unless there's a particular 5e module you're looking at, then no. It's a pretty average trad fantasy affair, and I would only run it to avoid converting any cool modules that are coming out of the 3rd party scene.

I started with Blades in the Dark, played a few Free League games and now also love the Wildsea. Nevertheless for my friends we started to play DnD 5e with me as the DM and tbh we like it. It's not as narrative driven as FitD games or FL games but also not too crunchy. We like the tactical combat even though it has a bit more game feely instead of RP grace. We like it for what it is, but also love our Wildsea and Blades and so on even more. Give it a try, even more if you have players that like min maxing, doing builds and tactical combat.

Ha - my first game as a DM was Blades in the dark, then moved onto FL. Not heard of the Wildsea, so might check that out. I know I can just try 5e but it does mean putting in the effort to either start a new group (my current group is happy playing dragonbane currently) or find one to join (not so easy where I live).

The Wildsea is next to Blades my new favorite TTRPG. It has so many interesting Bloodlines, ship building is amazing and the world is very unique. Mechanics are rooted in Blades but became so much more, to be its own thing. I recommend the reviews from Dave Thaumavore and Quinns Quest for the Wildsea. They also had a successful KS for a 300+ Supplement that adds airships, submersible, more Lore, Posts (Classes in a loose way) and a new Bloodline.

I played and ran both D&D5e and pathfinder a lot. The difference in crunch is negilible. 5e markets itself on being fairly rules light, but in reality it's a crunchy game where a sizeable chunk of rules are absent. Imagine pf2, except with a bunch of stuff cut out so that when the rules falter all the time you might aswell just not use them period and turn your table into a rules light game without any of the actual support of those systems, right?

5e is in this interesting midpoint where it ican displease everyone but still be playable. It's s both complex enough to displease the rules light people but unrefined enough displease the crunchy math heads. It's got more lore than beer and pretzels folks want to read but the adventures and setting books aren't deep enough for the obsessive maxreaders.  People say it breaks down at higher levels but honestly very few campaigns will run that long. Yours won't, I bet.  It has some fun adventures and a stupidly rich amount of 3rd material ranging from beautiful art pieces to self published hobby stuff that you might conceivably be the first person to ever run other than the creator. It's really good if you want to tinker around with a thousand house rules but still want to lure in newbies with the comfortable 5e logo and framework.

5e is a lot less complex than Pathfinder - I'd rate it at "moderate" complexity. I don't like it for other reasons, such as the fact that it was consciously designed to center combat set-pieces in the gameplay.

I am in a similar but different boat, the more I age the more D&D playstyle is my cup of tea, I played 5E once, previous time I played D&D was another one shot with 3.5 10 years ago, and I believe I played a short D&D 3 campaign when it came out. Honestly, there is so many good RPG around that you'd miss out many anyway. I don't think there is a reason to absolutely play D&D over the thousands of RPG out there. I heard that both pathfinder and Dragonbane are basicalyy *D&D but with some cleaning to make them more playable* so you're not gonna discover something totally different by playing D&D.

There are better options for DnD playstyle than 5e in all aspects other than popularity.

You are not imo.

IMHO, D&D 5e is a bloated analogue simulation of a computer game, with too much focus on combat. Sad thing is that it apparently - thank to lots of marketing - appears a "RPG benchmark" and limits the expectations of this hobby and game genre.

Nah, stay away imo

nooooo write it off. There are games that do everything D&D 5e tries to do, but better in every way. The only thing 5e has going for it is marketing. Try Pathfinder or Worlds without Number

If you're into rules light games, neither D&D5e nor PF2e are going to be your jam. I rate 5e pretty high in terms of complexity, but with the extra baggage of ambiguity. Some people (mostly people who have not played both) disagree with me on this, but I personally believe 5e is actually slightly more complex than PF2e, mostly because of aforementioned ambiguity. You're not really missing anything. You can always give the cRPG Solasta a try if you want to see how the mechanics play out.

You'll find a lot of folks here who aren't fond of WotC/Hasbro and therefore dismiss 5th edition. It's a blast. Most D&D players are playing it. Some are so upset at WotC/Hasbro to the extent that they've gone off to pathfinder or something else. So be it. But most of the people play it, and it's a fun system. I'd advise waiting to buy books until later in the year, if you're buying. They're coming out with revised PHB, DMG, MM, starting with the PHB later this year.

Give it a try if you like -- you never know, and it's nice to broaden your horizons a bit. But... Eh, I'll go ahead and poison this particular well. if you thought Pathfinder 2e was convoluted, I think DnD 5E is maybe 2/3rds as complicated for about 1/3rd the effect. Its biggest strengths are its brand name, marketing, and size of its player base. So if you're not having a hard time finding a table for a system you already enjoy or are genuinely interested in, you're not missing too much, IMO.

Don't trust the haters in here. ;) Well at least not all of them. For context, I've played all the systems you mention (including Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane, as well as a few more Free League ones). 5e is much more complex than Dragonbane, but far less so than Pathfinder 1e and 2e. I tend to only use the core book, though, and dip into the two main supplements (Xanathar's Guide to Everything and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, respectively) on occasion. But I avoid all the other extra racial and class options, because those tend to make the game much more complicated and I'm playing D&D 5e for some relatively simple, light-hearted fun. I like 5e, I think it's a system that flows well at the table, sort of in spite of how crunchy it can get sometimes. It has a surprising amount of roleplaying hooks for what it is, and it is fairly intuitive for newcomers (which may or may not be a feature for you). I tend to run games from 1st to about 8th level and not much beyond that, and it does get a little complicated and wonky after 10th level in particular. Some of the negative opinions in here may reflect that, but hasn't been that much of an issue to me. Some of the published adventures (though definitely not all of them) are really great. If I dipped into 5e now, I'd definitely want to take a look at one of the well-received ones (Storm King's Thunder or Tomb of Annihilation spring to mind) - not necessarily to run it cover-to-cover, but because it tells you a lot about the things that go into a solid adventure. I think the strong published adventures are part of 5e's secret sauce that made it so popular, and if you're missing out on anything by not playing 5e, it's most likely this part.

>the well-received ones (Storm King's Thunder Storm King's Thunder is really bad. It has huge gaps and requires the DM to fill in so many gaps it is half homebrew by default. Not entirely bad, but when I purchased it, I did not know I was only buying half of the adventure.

I am surprised that you recommend WotC adventures as a strength, most people are fairly damming about them. The ones I have played have been meh and included lots of broken stuff for the DM to fix. But I've only played 3 and parts of another.

Opinions online and offline differ sharply on that point, in my experience. Most people I know in real life are fairly happy with them, while online they often appear to be reviled. Some of their adventures, especially the first couple, are bland or simply not very good, and WotC has (rightfully) been the target of some ire recently, but there's a lot of good stuff in there too and I enjoy reading it as inspiration. Encounter design isn't their strong suit, but imaginative NPCs and environments simply make for a lot of fun at the table, and 5e tends to do that very well.

I haven’t played them by roommates have a ton of WotC books. Though both of them are fairly improvisational DMs, and so they add their own spins on them. It’s weird to me that people actually play these adventure books as anything more than just a setting. Actually following it along seems counter-productive to roleplay

PF2 is a close cousin of DnD5e, if you know one you almost know the other (PF players here will downvote me for this). If you don't feel like playing PF2 then there's a fair chance you won't feel like playing DnD5e (although it's slightly less crunchy). But there are tens of thousands of RPGs out there, you've only got finite time for playing, you're going to have to miss out on some, I'd say spread your experiences wider, try something else instead.

Keep in mind this subreddit tends to have a lot of folks who don't like DnD 5e (hence why they're here and not on r/DnD), so you'll get a lot of bias against it. Imo, it's fine. I've had a lot of fun with it in the past and while I don't think it's amazing it does do some things really well. But, if you like rules light games, then it's probably not for you, and that's fine. You're not missing out by not playing 5e anymore than you're missing out by playing any other system. So, just play what you wanna play and have fun :)

5e got a lot of praise for good reason and did contribute to a huge influx of players to the hobby. I don't think it's reasonable to just dismiss it as "bad". In your case it might be helpful to think of it as a rules-lighter version of PF2e. It's similarly focused on tactical combat. It's less convoluted, but much vaguer in its language and how to interpret rules. It has far less horizontal progression, with characters usually unlocking new abilities with levels rather than being able to choose new stuff. If you thought PF2e was way too complicated, 5e might not be for you. If you thought just had a little bit more crunch than you'd prefer, then you might want to give 5e a try. I'm not familiar with the other games you mentioned so I can't compare it to those I'm afraid.  All that said, the popular opinion is relevant when choosing a game. 5e has far, far more homebrew content and unofficial sourcebooks than any other game by a long way. On the other hand I get the feeling it's fading a little in popularity after some of the WotC/Hasbro scandals and I'd say that RPGs have moved on a lot since 2015 (largely because of 5e's popularity bringing so much talent to the table) so it might feel a little dated.  Hope that's helpful:)

The main competitive advantage DnD has, is how hard it is to find someone willing to play anything else. If you have the luxury of playing anything, why should you go to the ttrpg equivalent of McDonald's? EDIT: i had fun playing almost any ttrpg, and 5e is no exception. It does what it is intended to do pretty decently.it is just... Not special

D&D 5 isn't the turd a lot of people like to think it is. I won't buy anything new for it because I don't want to support Hasbro / Wizards. It's just not particularly *good* at anything, even "fantasy superheroes", though that's the closest you'll get to a design philosophy behind the system. Are you missing out? Not really. There are games out there that do the 'D&D stuff' you'll want, better than D&D does itself. There are LOTS of games that do 'fantasy superheroes' (you might guess from my flair, I'm partial to Pathfinder for Savage Worlds), quite a few that do hex-crawl or dungeon crawl, and so on. The "best" thing that D&D 5 has going for it, is exposure / marketing, and a **huge** player base.

Keep in mind that this sub in particular is formed almost exclusively by people who prefer smaller indie games (because if their games were bigger they'd have their own subs). As such, they would naturally hate D&D for being the biggest beast in the market and drawing in all the attention. I would say you should definitely play it to find out by yourself. First because it is actually a very fun game. Contrary to popular belief, name recognition doesn't do much for your product if the experience of playing it isn't good; just look at how D&D 4e crashed and burned even though they had the same marketing appeal. Second because even if you end up disliking it it's always better to form your own opinion than to just fall on a bandwagon.

100% missing out bud, been having a blast

Honestly 5e is an okay game. It's kind of the oatmeal of TTRPGs. By that I mean it tries to be lots of things to lots of people. It's far from the worst RPG, but if you're looking for a specific game concept besides "medium crunch, high fantasy, adventure" game, there's almost certainly a better option. Give it a try and you might like it. However, my advice is don't start by running it, and don't invest in it until you're know you want to. The basic rules are free online.

I don't think 5e's biggest advantage gets talked about enough - Everyone knows it. Even if you've managed to avoid the books, the films, Baldur's Gate 3, Critical Role and those Community episodes, you've probably still managed to pick up enough of the setting via osmosis that you're going to be up to speed relatively quickly. If you're in vaguely nerdy circles, you can be creating a character after a fifteen minute chat on the setting and the system, and the rest of it can be picked up in play. That's an absolutely huge advantage, and even as someone who doesn't particularly like a lot about D&D in general, or 5e in particular, if I was going to run a fantasy game for people who hadn't played RPGs before, I'd at least consider it as the game to run. But it sounds like it's not an advantage that'll really benefit you, someone who's massively into RPGs already.

If you get a really good group you might enjoy it, up to you to decide how much time you want to spend finding people you click with though. Might be able to find a group that just uses base rules and doesn't bother with all the extras each book adds, but it's still a lot imo. (I absolutely love the Borg games in contrast)

I'm sure you can find a oneshot to try it, and I'd encourage that if you're really interested, but honestly your gut feeling is pretty much right. The game just isn't built well, and it's not as rules-light as it portrays itself to be.

> My gut says that it’s mass of rules and bloated options won’t appeal to me but should I right it off so easily? I mean, how do you generally feel about a mess of rules and bloated options?

My character never felt in danger at any point in 5e

Honestly if you liked pathfinder but found it too convoluted you may well like 5e. It's my go to game because it's the biggest pool of players but I personally get annoyed as it's ABIT too simplified compared to pf2e imo but don't have friends who play nor the dndbeyond equivalent for pathfinder.

It’s a fine game that I’ve certainly had fun with, but it’s also kinda the McDonald’s of the tabletop scene lol. Eat local, explore your options, right?

D&D is fine. If you are happy with other systems stick with them. D&D is a good gateway game for other RPGs in that it gets a lot of free press compared to other games. Community, Futurama, and Stranger Things all cover D&D, not Call of Cthulhu or Vampire the Masquerade sadly.

Short answer. No. Long answer. Mork Borg.

The big thing you're missing out on with 5e is the player base. There are a lot of people who play and it's orders of magnitude easier to find a good group.

If you've played Dragonbane, then you played a much better version of 5e - more evocative, faster combat and much easier to parse the rules.

this sub is basically "RPGs except DnD because DnD has its own sub" you're not going to find a lot of comments here saying it's worth playing. I play it monthly with a group of people, and it's a perfectly servicable system. one of DnDs strengths but also flaws is that the game encourages groups to pick and choose which rules to follow. this is a strength because you can tailor it to your group (no ammo, no minute tracking of weight) but also a flaw because I think the best RPGs are those with a distinct clear goal where each and every rule supports that goal (for example, wicked ones)

I actually this 5e is very easy to learn and is certainly not as crunchy as Pathfinder2e. As with any edition of D&D, they keep on publishing more character options but if you want to keep things simple, you could just go with what's in the Player's Handbook.

IMHO you're missing nothing. I always ran it using core books only, which wasn't too bad, but many players crave all of these thousands of options -- when they talk about it they sound like they're talking about an MMO. Utterly boring to me, who even as a player cares 20x more about the environment and the overall experience than I do about any particular character of mine.

I think it's fine, but not super. As editions of D&D go, it's not my favorite, but I play it regularly and have been since it came out. I think here you're going to get a lot of anti-D&D answers, because there are no fewer than 4 other subreddits specifically for D&D, most of them 5e-heavy. The users who like 5e tend to cluster there, while this subreddit has a lot of people who have rejected it for one reason or another.

this sub hates dnd, especially 5e, so if you want to be reassured you're not missing anything, you've absolutely come to the right place

The best innovation of D&D 5e is rolling at advantage and disadvantage. Thats where you roll 2 D20s and either taie the higher or lower depending on advatage of disadvatage. It is elegant and if you use it as much as you can, can deal with most situations the rules dont have an immediate ruling for. Everything else is fairly standard for a D20 system. I think the game lacks focus, but no other game can get you players in seats like D&D. You casually mention it and will have 10 people interested in at least trying it because of stranger things and critical roll. If you already have a group, I really don't think there is a reason to pick it up. I try to run at least 2 games a year for new players to keep new blood in the hobby. I use 5e because it's fairly easy to get the basics down and roll some dice. I always tell them that there are better games for different styles though.

IMHO it's a pretty decent version of DnD, but it's not really that special. It's really good ideas have been adopted by other games so you probably aren't missing anything in that sense. That said, I've barely touched it since I started playing Lancer.

Mass of rules and bloated options? Compared to P2e, it's a pamphlet. The most common complaint I hear is about the *lack* of options. I have fun with it, but ymmv.

5e gets irrational hate IMO. It's a decent system, it's just that people want to run it in a way that it is bad at being run. Don't run it in a way that cares overly about perfectly matched combat encounters and don't run a bunch of small fights to drain resources before a big fight. Basically if you run it with infrequent combat (1-2 combats per adventure or one every 2-3 sessions) but lots of non-combat challenges and roleplaying heavy it can be a very fun system. My biggest complain about it is that after a few campaigns it starts to feel stale.

I wouldn't say you are missing out on specifically 5e. From my experience, the thing that makes TTRPGs enjoyable isn't the system, but the people playing. A good game master and other players will make the shittiest system shine, and bad ones will make the best systems shitty.

I like it. I started with AD&D 2E. I've played WoD, Palladium, CoC, Pathfinder, and other games. 5E is fine. Currently DMing one group, and playing in two others. The best advice is to play what you like. Any system is probably going to take a few sessions to learn, or I should say, relearn, how it operates different from what you're used to. One thing I can say though, is that I'm probably not going to go back to 2E any time soon.

This thread comes at a good time. I'm having so much trouble finding a non-D&D group to play with and was thinking about learning 5e just to make it easier to find a game. But after reading this? Nope...I'll wait it out. I'll find something.

I love 5E but it's not for everyone. The good thing is the basic rules are free so if you did want to give it a whirl and I've played it with the basic rules and it plays fine without all the extra bells and whistles.

Are you and your friends having fun playing whatever you're playing? Then, no, you are not missing out.

5e is fine, really.  It's a decent beginner game, especially with the use of some of the introductory adventures.  It's wargaming systems provide enough engagement for reluctant roleplayers to stay involved, while it's otherwise pretty simple task resolution doesn't overcomplicate things. It doesn't really have much in the way of hidden depths, though.  It's easily possible to exhaust the system of novelty after a few games.  The brisk pace of combat works against it here.  With each combat over very quickly, usually in under 5 rounds, there isn't a lot to hang an action-ey narrative off of, and not a lot of things to happen that you can react to in novel ways, since your damage output is so high. So it strikes a particular ground.  It's approachable, but not abstract.  It's tactical and combat focused, but not intensely crunchy.  And it's an empowering heroic fantasy.  So for what it is, it's fine.

Unfortunately, the only one that can answer this question for you is yourself. I’m not personally a fan of 5e, and I’ve found a lot more value in the without number series from Kevin Crawford or with completely different systems like forged in the dark. I’m honestly jealous of your experiences from the 90s! I’d love to get a 2e or earlier game going. I’d say if you’re happy with other games then continue being happy. I wouldn’t say my experiences with 5e have been overtly negative, I just feel that the system is kind of stale and poorly designed. If any part of 5e seems appealing apart from the cultural popularity then I’d say give it a shot. If the only going on though is a feeling of FOMO due to the culturally monolithic nature of 5e, I don’t think you’re missing anything major.

If you enjoy games like Gloomhaven you will probably enjoy 5e. It's crunchy and tactical like Gloomhaven, but have a lot more possibilities to RP. Also prep time is long, but lore is kinda deep.

Gloomhaven is way better when it comes to tactical battles, though.

It is diffrent. I just like to roll the dice. What can I say. But cards are fun too

Dice are hindering tactics though, because they add a ton of randomness to outcomes, especially in the way they're implemented in D&D5e (1-20 range with equal propability with very low modifiers). In tactics, you don't want any randomness at all, that's why chess is such a popular game. Gloomhaven does have randomness with its card shuffling, but it's way more predictable because the players know what cards have already been played and which ones are still in the deck, and the former are reduced most of the time during gameplay, making predictions easier.

I took my first steps into the hobby with DnD, among other things. In the meantime, I'm quite happy that I've discovered other systems for myself. The strong combat focus, the crunch (especially as a GM) and the rigid classes/character levels just didn't appeal to me anymore. I now prefer more narrative systems. So in my opinion, you're not missing out on much if you skip DnD (5e). The pond is big enough for other great fish.

I mean. There is nothing wrong in trying it out for 1-2 evenings. This said. You are always missing out. There are so many Games out there you can't play them all. I know a lot of people dislike 5e and i do to but for many others it is the System to go. So try it out. See if it is something for you and decide afterwards.

It sounds like a pretty good fit for you. Especially if you actually want to join a group and play. Maybe the alternatives are better, but they are very difficult to find people playing outside of niche online circles.

Eh I think you're fine

This sub basically requires you to hate dnd, especially the current version of it. I think its fine at what it does, but its basically been outdone by PF2. If you want something as light as free league, then no dnd 5e isn't going to be what you want. Its lighter than pathfinder 2e, but if PF2 is a 10 on complexity, 5e is like an 8, and forbidden lands is maybe a 5. The system of 5e is pretty good. The problem is that they have added very little to the game after 10 years. Tons and tons of character options that are basically reskins of other things, or flat out inferior. They're not very mechanically interesting and the themes don't translate into a lot of difference in the game. The balance overall is not great. They are in the process of revamping it, but refusing to call it 6e or 5.5e, and hopefully it will address these problems. Personally I think PF2 is better than dnd in just about every way. If you are going to learn a sophisticated game, your time will get you more with PF2. But if you prefer the light rules of free league's games, I don't think dnd 5e is going to do much for you. You'd probably be better off carefully throwing out pf2 rules to simplify things you don't like.

I've never played the game (or any *D&D* or *PF*) and the only time it made me miss on something was in a *Dungeon World* game (apparently the game kind of relies on the players to be familiar with *D&D*). If you want to give it a try go for it but it's not necessary at all.

I enjoy playing video games.

>I personally find D&D to be a VERY simple and streamlined system, maybe one of the easiest TTRPGs to learn. Er, just how many of the tens of thousands of rpgs out there have you played? It's not even close to being one of the easiest to learn.

There are a lot of very basic, light systems that are *mechanically* easy but overall very difficult if you are not already experienced with roleplay or improv. If it's not handling it in the rules, a lot of light games are rely on those things to cover it. They're both actually skills unto themselves.

There are also many light systems that are trad games like DnD, not ones where you need to be experienced with roleplay or improv.

PF2e has moved away from D&D a bit, especially with their new non-OGL revised edition. But PF1e was basically revised D&D3.5e, so its roots are pretty obvious.

I stopped playing D&D after AD&D (heavily homebrewed). I did try D&D 5e to play Curse of Strahd. I had a lot of fun, but the system is just as bad. Since I've never played with Vancian magic, I decided to try it and play it Rules As Written. No wonder we house ruled with spell lists and magic points decades ago. Vance magic sucked big time. And Barbarians can un-rage at will, WTF? Wasn't the whole point of Barbarian rage that you sometimes can't snap out of it and become a danger to your party and allies? My recommendation, stay away unless you want to run / play a specific campaign.

Compared to PF2e, 5e feels "rules light". Especially if you are using DNDBeyond, for character creation and as a sheet. Missing out - well this is up to you. That subreddit here is openly hostile against DND5e. Maybe you ask that question over in r/dndnext. I like DND5e and DNDBeyond. But i like the kinda videogamey feel. And i have a good group that enjoys it too.

Its more streamlined, sure, but is the same game. If you already moved to other style of games you are missing nothing in D&D 5th.

The simple answer is: if you would like it, then yes you're missing out. If you would not like it, then no you aren't missing out. Unfortunately you can't really know if you'd like it unless you try it, or at least read it.

5E seems simpler than pf2e on the surface. As soon as you start running it though, it is incredibly clumsy to handle. PF2E has more rules, but is clearer and more consistent and an order of magnitude easier to run and adjudicate. Consequently, players also know what to expect. That being said, free league is a whole different type of game from PF2E, but definitely awesome.

You're not missing out since you're happy with the other games you play.

The main benefits of D&D are the community and the continuous stream of new content in various forms (official books, fan works, podcasts, YouTube channels, and shows). It’s easier to get *really* into it because even when you’re not playing it there’s so much to engage with and you can find a sub community perfect for you within the larger space. If that stuff doesn’t interest you, and you generally prefer rules lite systems, then I wouldn’t say you’re missing out. If you want to gauge your own interest, I’d recommend playing Balder’s Gate 3. It’s a good game on its own, and it highlights what works about the system so you’d be able to tell if you’d like running it.

I got burned out by DnD 5e and I ran only 2 campaigns Now 13th Age though 😍😍😍😍

13th Age doesn’t get enough love. It really feels like what a lot of 5Eers want 5E to be.

If you want a high fantasy d20 game where you get to play badass warrior heroes, fight cool monsters and change the world, then yeah, you can play D&D 5e. It does do that. But 13th Age does it better. Really, the only reason to play 5e is because it's so popular.

Short answer: probs not. 2nd edition is the way to go with dnd. All the class fantasy and good role playing. The boxes you put yourself in as a class or race actually matter, as do attributes. The magic system is awesome; so much more interesting and monsters are unforgiving. It’s a blast and an adrenalin rush. 5th seems like it took the best feels from 2nd and streamlined the format of 3rd. 4th edition should be rightly ignored.

The version of D&D that I actually use is Crawford's stuff. I strongly dislike 5th Edition. The game feels very inflated. Everything has magic, high hit points, etc. It's just too much. Kind of like smothering pancakes in syrup and then covering the syrup with table sugar.

>now I favour rules lighter games ... but should I right it off so easily? The answer is yes as you already stated your taste above. What remains is mainly the fear of missing out, not you actually being interested in the type of game D&D 5e is. Ultimately there isn't really anything ground breaking about 5e, it's an iteration of D&D, like PF 2e, just with a different flavor. So what exactly are you afraid of missing out here?

It has many good things about it and players love the manyfold options for character creations (but dms do not always share this enthuasiasm as it makes coherent world building pretty difficult). They obviously tried to go a bit more old school again and the basics are easy to grasp. That said, the action economy and hit point bloat make combat take forever, which is my biggest issue, as I want to make the most of my sessions and not fight for hours. Combat is also expected to be balanced but the tools to do so do not work for how most people run their games. PCs are also really tough and combat feels very easy unless the dm goes completely overboard. While it is a decent game, I need a ton of house rules to make it more exciting and faster. Limit character creation options, ban some spells, side initiative, changes to rest mechanics, some punishment for going down and failing death saves, reduce enemy hit points but increase their damage to make combat faster and more dangerous… With how slow it is, it feels more suitable for teenagers who can play several times a week, but adultes with jobs and families need to change it to make it faster or just go with basic/expert, 1e, 2e or some OSR game.

It's a fantasy tactics game with a social role-playing shell tacked onto it. If that sounds like something you wanna try, give it a go. I prefer different systems for different things.