Mostly a question for those who still run and played 5E and generally have had a positive view of 5E from the outset.

I've owned and run DnD 5E for quite a few months now and feel I have a pretty good handle on how it works and how to run it in general.

I've owned all 3 core books for quite a while (PHB, MM and DMG), read through them and use some of the alternate rules I like from the DMG and PHB.
So I'm in a pretty comfortable place.

Aside from some things that feel kind of clunky and sort of shoe-horned in, such as kit proficiencies, I really like 5E.

I had a few weeks break from running DnD and tabletop RPGs in general up until very recently, as life got very busy, so I was a little concerned about running DnD on Sunday just passed, as I wasn't sure if If forgotten the rules etc.
Not the rules generally, just those little gotchas here and there that come up when someone wants to try something unusual.

I was VERY pleasantly surprised to find that it was like riding a bike...  It's just really easy to pick back up and the system flows very nicely.
I did have to reference spells from time to time. but one of the other players has bought the core 3 books set anyway, so we have 2 sets of rules at the table now.

All in all, if anything, especially with the DMG, I'm liking 5E more than ever.

I asked all the players their views and they all really enjoy getting into the Fantasy RPG trip and just having a laugh.
It's SO easy to determine on the fly how the rules work when unusual things happen, as the system is simple enough, but very flexible.

I noticed I didn't have one single debate about how a spell or rule was applied. it just all reads pretty clearly.

So I still give it a 9 out of 10. It's not perfect, but it's darn close and there's so many options to tune for your own tastes, even the things that are slightly annoying can be ironed out.

So, for those who generally had a positive view of 5E how's it going for you? Still liking it?

Relatively easy to run with a reasonable plethora of PC options.  It provides a solid DnD experience while not having the system get in the way.  I expect it to remain my goto system for years to come.

I have DMed:

1. Legacy of the Crystal Shard;
2. Lost Mine of Phandelver; and
3. Vault of the Dracolich.

I have played the first half of Hoard of the Dragon Queen.

I am enjoying it and find it provides a solid D&D experience. There has been some tarnishing with time. I find DMing 5e to be more pain than I want these days TBH and the playstyle still less freewheeling than I prefer.

Quote from: Skywalker;833280I find DMing 5e to be more pain than I want these days TBH and the playstyle still less freewheeling than I prefer.

That's interesting, as I find it really comfortable to run and really smooth.
If anything, it seems easier to run than ever.

I wonder if that's something to do with I used to run Pathfinder extensively in the past.
I quite enjoyed PF at first, but over time, especially with all the extra books, it just became a pain to run.
Eventually when the party got to 12+ level, I abandoned PF for other RPGs as it was so complicated and clunky and didn't really come back to DnD until 5E, which was a huge breath of fresh air and a big step down in complexity and clunkiness.

Still, I hear where you're coming from.
Historically I loved RQ, RQ2, Legend, Rolemaster and lots of pretty complicated systems.
I browse the books now and think "I can't be bothered with this"...

Much the same, a 9 out of 10. The MM and one tiny element from the DMG for me drag it down from a 10.

Plays really well and I really enjoy DMing it and playing it.

Quote from: Omega;833283Much the same, a 9 out of 10. The MM and one tiny element from the DMG for me drag it down from a 10.

Yeah the MM was a bit of a disappointment in that is was referenced very badly and useful tables etc were missing.
That was fixed with the DMG, but I don't understand why they didn't just put it in the MM, as those tables in the DMG that reference the MM only will be useless when the MM2 comes out.

I played in a campaign of it online... it was ok.
I know I like it more than Pathfinder (playing a sorcerer in both)... but it's not something I'm going to seek out or purchase. I do like some of the options in the DMG though.
If our regular Wednsday group voted to drop PF and go 5e I'd see that as a positive.

Quote from: danskmacabre;833288when the MM2 comes out.

If a MM2 comes out. So far they seem content to leave that stuff to the modules.

I'm loving it so far (never played, I've only Game Mastered). Rather simple to run and whenever we crack open the book to verify how something works it always turns out to be super simple (as in, we could've just made a simple ruling and it wouldn't have been that different).

I've read a lot of negativity threads on the Big Purple and have felt that most of those complaints could have been fixed with minute house rules (or any of the variant rules in the DMG). I think that some people out there should really stick with 4e.

Been running a lot of OSR material thanks to the DMG table on broad monster stats by CR (typically I'm just handwaving it and converting HD into CR and it's been working rather well so far).

Edit: My players have agreed to playing it RAW for now to test it out. Next campaign will be house ruled a bit and using several variants from the DMG.

As a player: played in an adaptation of the Wrath of the Righteous adventure path for Pathfinder. Good fun, fast play, ended in a fair TPK.

As a GM: Currently 12 sessions into an Eberron campaign. It's better than 3e, faster than 4e, still has balance issues but whatever, good times, very flexible and really does accommodate mixing combat, exploration and intrigue. I'll run this campaign again for another group with a few house rules.

Debating if I should stick to theater of the mind for this system. Really want some errata and boosts to some of the weaker character options, but it's ambiguous when/if we're going to get any.

I've GM'ed 25-30 sessions and have played a similar number. I was part of the playtest of Next, and entered the whole 5E experience feeling positive about the game.

Still positive about it.

I have found a few things that I dislike, mostly the fact that many of the non "core four" classes seem to be overpowered, but overall I'm having a great time with the game. I'm running my game at the local game store so I have to use everything in the Player's Handbook, but if it was all up to me I'd probably go with the free download Basic rules.

My favorite version of D&D is white box OD&D, but I'd put 5E and AD&D roughly tied for second.

Well, I'm liking it, but the magic/spell system has real issues.

I find the cleric is casting cantrips every round (Sacred Flame ftw!), along with bonus action healing spells, except when he starts firing off some pretty amazing damaging spells. The cleric is basically an armor-wearing wizard with healing now.

I find the real issue is the deadly combo:

1) Extra, extra, spells for spellcasters.
2) Absolutely no way to stop spellcasting.
3) Easy to cast multiple spells per round.
4) Higher damage on spell output.

We're back in "pretty stupid not to be a spellcaster" territory again, and broken spells (polymorph, wizard eye, some cantrips and many rituals) are pretty problematic, starting around level 7.

Consider the devastation when a party of level 4 characters meets a level 5 wizard, with no special abilities.

The wizard's effective AC can easily be 19 (shield, mage armor, dex bonus), so he's almost certainly going to live 2 rounds. There's basically no way to prevent the wizard from casting two, 8d6, fireballs. Now, only an idiot makes a 5e character without a good Dex bonus, so it's quite reasonable to make one of those saving throws, but both is unlikely.

So, the whole party is pretty much guaranteed to take 12d6 damage (yes, there may be one character with evasion). That's enough to bring most characters to 0, and kill any character that is a little unlucky enough to fail both saving throws (around 25% chance, so that's a death for a typical 4-character party). Give the wizard any special abilities like a PC wizard would have, and we're talking real trouble here.

And that's a single level 5 wizard, probably not a CR 5 encounter by the rules....and he'll even have enough spells to make a getaway. Now, certainly you can niggle with particular classes and particular abilities, and certainly if a character simply runs away that'll avoid a TPK, but the fact remains, this isn't an easy fight, and it won't take much (a decent initiative roll by the wizard) to have a character or two die.

And that's just if the wizard lives 2 rounds, toss in a few extra rounds and multiple PC deaths are likely.

So, yeah, the magic system has some real cracks in it. I'm thinking about simply removing "enemy wizard" as a foe, and tossing in alot more magic-type resistances to monsters (is anything in the game resistant to sonic damage?).

I was involved with the playtest and have run a couple adventures since 5E was officially published. Still enjoying it. However, I must say I'm more excited about playing in an upcoming campaign of Princes of the Apocalypse that one of my group is DMing than in DMing myself anytime soon.

I ran a campaign of 4E Essentials between when I started playtesting 5E and when 5E was published. I never thought I'd miss something about 4E, but I miss the ease of DMing. The 4E stat blocks are simplicity itself. With 5E, we're back to cracking other books to reference monster abilities and - especially - NPC spells. Feels like a step back to me, and my dislike is a symptom of my ever-diminishing tolerance for complexity and look-ups while I DM.

On the other hand, I don't think I've ever been more excited to make up a PC than I am with the 5E PHB. Tremendous amount of cool ideas and customization available without much complexity. Maybe this will be the edition that I experience and enjoy more as a player than a DM.

I've just started playing in a campaign, it's a lot of fun and a good change being on the other side of the DMs screen. Bards are AWESOME! Though it is kind of 'rocket tag'-ish at the level we're at (2nd), having run a group to around 5th I know it evens out as you go along.

I've got no complaints.

Quote from: Doom;833337Well, I'm liking it, but the magic/spell system has real issues.

I find the cleric is casting cantrips every round (Sacred Flame ftw!), along with bonus action healing spells, except when he starts firing off some pretty amazing damaging spells. The cleric is basically an armor-wearing wizard with healing now.

I find the real issue is the deadly combo:

1) Extra, extra, spells for spellcasters.
2) Absolutely no way to stop spellcasting.
3) Easy to cast multiple spells per round.
4) Higher damage on spell output.

We're back in "pretty stupid not to be a spellcaster" territory again, and broken spells (polymorph, wizard eye, some cantrips and many rituals) are pretty problematic, starting around level 7.

1: er, what extra spells?
2: yeah. This is an issue. The spell is either insta-cast or takes so long that castin it in combat isnt an option. Concentration spells though are still vulnerable.
3: er? since When? My Warlock cant?, the Wizard cant?
4: Yes, no, maybee. We did the math and within certain limits a fighter and a wizard nearly even out. The wizard can do alot of damage all at once. But may not be able to d that again for the est of the adventure depending on what was prepped.

Polymorph isnt broken if you play it as its written. Its got some potentially severe drawbacks.