5th Edition play

[Rigon]

So, my long time group will be retiring our super high level PCs after we complete this last adventure. We started with AD&D 2e but switched to 3e when that came out. The GM is getting frustrated with the complexity and laboriousness of high level 3rd edition. He has mentioned that a system change was needed. The two systems that we are talking about are C&C and D&D 5e. I know how well C&C works in play, but never having played 5e, the only things I know about the system are what I've read in the books. I'd be more than ok with a switch to C&C, but I'd like to give D&D 5e a try too.

My question then is, for those of you that have actually played D&D 5e, how does it play compared to C&C, D&D 3e, or even AD&D 2e.

R-

[Treebore]

Kayolan and I played it for about 5 months. We can talk about it next time we play. I will say I like how it plays better than 3E or 4E, by a good bit, but I still much prefer C&C.

[finarvyn]

I was involved in the 5E playtest (called "D&D Next" at the time), have played for a couple years since the release, and was a GM in the local game store for a year, so I've got a decent feel for 5E's play style.

Looking at your listed choices, I'd rank them:
1. C&C
2. 5E
3. AD&D 2E
(large gap)
4. 3E

Basically, I think that 5E is most similar to AD&D 2E of all your listed options. It's way easier to play than 3E and doesn't have all those pesky little crunchies, but it does have a decent number of race and class options and each class has some choices sort of like 2E kits.

C&C is easier to play than all of them, and to me is more like a blend of AD&D 1E with 3E. (1E feel, some 3E clean-up rules.) For a house rules set I'd be tempted to go with C&C, but if you have interest in playing at a game store you probably want to consider 5E. Both are superior options (in my opinion) to either 2E or 3E.

[Treebore]

The biggest thing I don't like is just like previous editions, they define everything. Sure, they generalized skills more than ever before, but its still limiting. During the 5 months I played, I just kept thinking, "Gee, if we were using the SIEGE engine I could just roll to see if I can do that."

What I really like about 5E is how much they have cut down the power curve, which hopefully does make higher level play more "do able" for those who have been too intimidated to run it before. I have yet to play above a 5th level character, so can't really say how well it worked.

I also like the "path" options they give for each class. I also like how they enable you to develop a background history, etc...

In play we still had to do a lot of looking up of rules for particular situations, even after months of playing, so C&C is still an easier "engine" to learn, is still more powerful and versatile, but 5E is probably over all the best edition of D&D ever made. Why do I say that? Because the rules, over all, are even simpler than 1E or 2E D&D, far better explained, and much better organized. Now thats assuming you actually used all the rules, in particular for 1E AD&D. If you are like I was, and stripped it down, got rid of the confusing stuff, such as initiative, things like Weapons versus armor and speed factors, then I think an argument can be made. As written, though, using everything as presented, 5E is the best version of D&D yet. Aside from C&C and its SIEGE engine.

[Jyrdan Fairblade]

5e is much more enjoyable than 3e, in my opinion. Not sure how it handles at high levels, though. C&C is definitely the faster, more rules-light system, but 5e has good bones, no doubt.

If I had to pick between 5e and C&C as a DM/CK, I'd go with C&C probably. But another factor to consider are the rest of the players - 3e gives a ton of character options, and 5e does a great job of providing just enough of those without the overkill that damaged 3e and 4e.

[Treebore]

But another factor to consider are the rest of the players - 3e gives a ton of character options, and 5e does a great job of providing just enough of those without the overkill that damaged 3e and 4e.

So far. Third Party publishers are already taking it "there", and I can only expect WOTC to do the same.

[Rigon]

In talking with my buddy, who will most probably wind up running it, we decided to limit any further gaming to core books only and 20th level or so. i think we could stay with 3rd edition doing that, but I think he wants to try something new. It was proposed that I run a one shot of each on vacation this summer so we can get a feel for each of the systems. Mainly for them as I know enough about C&C to be happy with it. Not so much with 5e, but we will see.

R-

[finarvyn]

The biggest thing I don't like is just like previous editions, they define everything. Sure, they generalized skills more than ever before, but its still limiting. During the 5 months I played, I just kept thinking, "Gee, if we were using the SIEGE engine I could just roll to see if I can do that."

For official "Adventurer's League" play you pretty much have to play by the book, but for home play they say that 5E is pretty modular and you can cut out chunks of rules (no skills, no backgrounds, no feats, or whatever) and the rules work just fine. Why not just drop skills and use SIEGE? It would still be basically 5E but have the advantage of simplicity.

[Jyrdan Fairblade]

If I had to run 3e again, I would stipulate core three books only. And indeed, for the first year of 5e, I started off saying that the only player content allowed was in the PHB. When it became clear we weren't going to get bombarded with options, I relented.

In talking with my buddy, who will most probably wind up running it, we decided to limit any further gaming to core books only and 20th level or so. i think we could stay with 3rd edition doing that, but I think he wants to try something new.

[finarvyn]

If I had to run 3e again, I would stipulate core three books only. And indeed, for the first year of 5e, I started off saying that the only player content allowed was in the PHB.

That's a pretty good rule for most games, actually.

5E has several add-ons at the moment, but one cool thing in "Adventurer's League" play is that you can't mix rules options for a given character. The PH choices are universal, but if you use an extra book (say you chose Elemental spells from the Rage of Demons module) then you can only use spells and such from that book (and the PH). In other words, AL play won't let you buy all of the books and cherry pick a feat from one book, a few spells from another, and so on. That sort of limitation makes sense to me.

Of course, an adventuring party could mix books. You might have a wizard from one book, a fighter from another, a cleric from a third ... as long as each character was built and grows from a single volume (plus the PH).

[Rigon]

So, it looks as if I've been tagged to run 5e for my friends this summer on vacation for a test drive to see if we like it enough to switch from 3e. I am also running a C&C one shot for them. Now, I know what adventure I'm going to use for the C&C one shot. What I don't know is what adventure to use for the 5e one shot. Any recommendations?

R-

[finarvyn]

You might look at the low-level 5E modules put out by Goodman games. I've run several of them and they are pretty well done. Not as out-there as their DCC RPG stuff but more mainstream.

The "free RPG day" adventure was uber-high level (12th or something like that) so watch out, but there are several others at level 1-4 or so.

[Rigon]

Thanks Finn, I'll check them out. Does anyone know what differences there are between the C&C version of The Rising Knight and the 5e version. I'm toying with the idea of running the same adventure using the 2 different systems so they can see the differences.

R-