Base 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO.  The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.  There was always going to be a point where GMs and players realized that there were a number of things that needed deep level repairs.

I love 5e for some of what it did. I got to run games for younglings that got a chance because of the combo of Stranger Things and 5e.  It's very easy to house rule and make homebrew content for.  When it's not saddled with a bunch of extra crap, it works well.  At it's core, it's an excellent game.

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO.  The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.

Watched it. Good information. I don't like Mearls (I won't deny he can design games) so it was good to hear the confirmation of what I've long suspected. What was more fun to read was the comment section and the WotC fanboys defending it.

Quote from: Horace on Today at 09:43:15 AM

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO.  The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.

For similar reasons, non-combat play gets to be an issue too.  Between spells and money, players will either just blow through everything or get stuck and give up.  Finding ways to challenge players gets to the point of absurdity of hours concocting interesting encounters that the players will just solve with spells, money, or stabbing.

Fuck goodberry too. Survival D&D?  Wilderness adventure?  Nope, goodberry and Mordenkinen's mansion and it's just over.

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 10:57:38 AMFuck goodberry too. Survival D&D?  Wilderness adventure?  Nope, goodberry and Mordenkinen's mansion and it's just over.

Ah yes. I tried running a dungeon crawl with all the ration, water, encumbrance, and resource management rules once, but the players just showed up with characters that trivialized all those things. The rules never came up after the first few minutes, because there was no point.

I could spend time modifying the game to make classic dungeon crawls possible, but I start to feel really silly when my list of house rules stretches beyond half a page.

Quote from: Horace on February 27, 2025, 11:22:03 AMThe simplicity is what made 2014 5E great. Every class and subclass was roughly equal in power, so a new player could make a character without fear of being a gimp. They didn't have to research "builds" in order to be useful. Since then, though, 5E has only added more feats, spells, classes, and subclasses -- way more than was ever needed -- to the point that the options are overwhelming once again. System mastery is almost as much of a thing as it was in 3E, thanks to power-creep and broken multiclass combinations. It's enough to ruin the game, in my opinion.

Even with only the core rules, 5E isn't simplicity IMO. It's still complicated, so I found it a little off-putting to hear Mearls praise himself about how streamlined the 2014 rules he worked on were. If one wants a simple D&D-like game, BECMI or one of its many offshoots is a better bet.

I agree that the 5E option books made it worse, and I didn't like them - but every edition of D&D has added more options that eventually became overwhelming if you allow them all. In the 1E days, I avoided _Unearthed Arcana_ options like Cavalier and Barbarian because they showed clear power-creep. 2E had a huge number of kits in all the "Complete <X>" books along with Skills & Powers. 3E and 3.5E likewise added tons of options.

I've enjoyed 5E - but I generally only allowed options from the core books, and I never ran above level 9.

Quote from: jhkim on Today at 01:47:40 PMEven with only the core rules, 5E isn't simplicity IMO. It's still complicated [...] If one wants a simple D&D-like game, BECMI or one of its many offshoots is a better bet.

That is true. I cut my teeth on AD&D, so 5E seems simple to me by comparison. But you're right, there are simpler games out there and even simpler versions of D&D, so 5E isn't exactly simple in absolute terms. But it was a huge shift after the complexity of 3E and 4E, and I think it got more right than it got wrong.

And yes, every edition of D&D accumulates bloat and power-creep over time. I've accepted this as a fact of life at this point, but it's saddening all the same.

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO.  The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.  There was always going to be a point where GMs and players realized that there were a number of things that needed deep level repairs.

I love 5e for some of what it did. I got to run games for younglings that got a chance because of the combo of Stranger Things and 5e.  It's very easy to house rule and make homebrew content for.  When it's not saddled with a bunch of extra crap, it works well.  At it's core, it's an excellent game.

Outside of AD&D, and BD&D. The game generally falls apart at "name" level, because all WotC versions don't change the style of play at this level like TSR did.

Quote from: jhkim on Today at 01:47:40 PM

Quote from: Horace on February 27, 2025, 11:22:03 AMThe simplicity is what made 2014 5E great. Every class and subclass was roughly equal in power, so a new player could make a character without fear of being a gimp. They didn't have to research "builds" in order to be useful. Since then, though, 5E has only added more feats, spells, classes, and subclasses -- way more than was ever needed -- to the point that the options are overwhelming once again. System mastery is almost as much of a thing as it was in 3E, thanks to power-creep and broken multiclass combinations. It's enough to ruin the game, in my opinion.

Even with only the core rules, 5E isn't simplicity IMO. It's still complicated, so I found it a little off-putting to hear Mearls praise himself about how streamlined the 2014 rules he worked on were. If one wants a simple D&D-like game, BECMI or one of its many offshoots is a better bet.

I agree that the 5E option books made it worse, and I didn't like them - but every edition of D&D has added more options that eventually became overwhelming if you allow them all. In the 1E days, I avoided _Unearthed Arcana_ options like Cavalier and Barbarian because they showed clear power-creep. 2E had a huge number of kits in all the "Complete <X>" books along with Skills & Powers. 3E and 3.5E likewise added tons of options.

I've enjoyed 5E - but I generally only allowed options from the core books, and I never ran above level 9.

It was simplicity in context. He was comparing designing 3.X & 4E specifically.

At the very beginning of internal playtest the game was essentially D20 AD&D.

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 10:57:38 AM

Quote from: Horace on Today at 09:43:15 AM

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO.  The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.

For similar reasons, non-combat play gets to be an issue too.  Between spells and money, players will either just blow through everything or get stuck and give up.  Finding ways to challenge players gets to the point of absurdity of hours concocting interesting encounters that the players will just solve with spells, money, or stabbing.

Fuck goodberry too. Survival D&D?  Wilderness adventure?  Nope, goodberry and Mordenkinen's mansion and it's just over.

This happens because WOTC D&D (all versions) NEVER challenges the players. All "challenges" are for various numbers on the character sheet. The player merely needs to push the correct button, or make a high enough roll. There are no challenges that require the players to actually think of something not represented by a button or lever on the character sheet which is the primary reason the games are much less engaging for players. There is little actual playing to do, thus everyone zones out when it is not their turn to push a button or pull a lever.

Quote from: Horace on Today at 09:43:15 AMOut of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.

For me it was both the length of combat and the difficulty trying to challenge the PCs. They cakewalked a number of serious enemies I laid out for them. And it took forever. I imagine there are ways of creating good challenges, but it's much harder than it was just a level or two prior. The Challenge Chasm.

Quote from: Horace on Today at 09:43:15 AM

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO.  The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.

Years back, I remember getting deep into Horde Of The Dragon Queen and while it was fun and a great group, nearing the end of it the GM was often scratching his head as everyone was crunching numbers and bonus actions and it felt very little like role-playing and a lot like wargaming.

Quote from: D-ko on Today at 04:47:02 PM

Quote from: Horace on Today at 09:43:15 AM

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO.  The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.

Years back, I remember getting deep into Horde Of The Dragon Queen and while it was fun and a great group, nearing the end of it the GM was often scratching his head as everyone was crunching numbers and bonus actions and it felt very little like role-playing and a lot like wargaming.

For a few years I tinkered with the idea of doing a 5e that was 25 levels but level 25 was equivalent to level five in official 5e.  It would have made a lot more sense to me.  In the end, it just seemed like a lot of work to fight with potential players.  "why not just play normal 5e?"