We here at Nerd Sourced have our ears close to the ground when it comes to current events in the D&D world. The genesis of this site was largely designed around the release of our most played RPG system, D&D. So far, we love the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons, and we certainly aren’t the only ones.

Unfortunately for our mental well being, we’re also aware of the D&D ‘edition wars,’ though we don’t participate in them. Our team has enjoyed everything D&D has offered us in the past 15 years that we’ve played.

Dungeons & Dragons Edition WarsThis article isn’t about us, though. It’s about what we’ve heard since the new Players Handbook was published. There were bound to be complaints about it, of course, as there are bound to be complaints about any product –since, after all, no single product can (nor should) please everyone. We know this is how competition thrives, on the shortcomings and oversights of opponents.

There is one common complaint that I hear much too frequently, though, and this complaint doesn’t deserve the legitimacy that comes with the attention it receives.

Which complaint drives me crazy every time it rears it’s ugly head? That the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons is “dumbed-down.” Normally, I would avoid making such a flame-baiting observation, but one of the core values of Nerd Sourced is to make games like D&D more accessible to new players. We want to welcome and foster a new generation of adventurers who will grow within the community, and such elitist attitudes and complaints are an attack on what we stand for.

“Games give you a chance to excel, and if you’re playing in good company, you don’t even mind if you lose because you had the enjoyment of the company during the course of the game.”

– Gary Gygax

Simplified Rules Lead to More Time

Indeed the rules for D&D 5e have been simplified, compared to previous editions, but that doesn’t mean they’re dumbed-down. Their simplification makes them better for people who want to spend time and energy playing the game, instead of analyzing the rule books.

In life, time is our most precious resource. Unlike other resources that may come and go, time only goes, and never comes back. Simplified rules will allow players and DMs to use this precious resource where it matters most; to have fun! With the countless conditional modifiers and rules in prior editions, much time was wasted on researching to identify every last one. When you include the brain power needed to remember when or how to apply all of these, you begin to wonder where the fun fits in.

Wizards of the Coast identified the usefulness of such a system -which is absolutely none- and decided to get rid of as many of the silly rules as possible. The result is a cleaner, crisper gaming system with rules that matter, and which enables players to play more and have to read, research, and remember less.

Easier Rules Means More PlayersEasier Rules Lead to More Players

I am starting a campaign with nearly all brand new players. They are very smart people (on paths to PhDs as a matter of fact), and the general reaction I received when I showed them the books was “Are we gonna have homework for this?”

If this was any of the prior editions of D&D, I would have had to think of a response about having to grasp certain mechanics, like powers or base attack bonuses. I’d have to word it in such a way so that it wouldn’t come off as a chore they would have to fit into their already busy schedules.

This is D&D Next, though, so my answer was simply “Nope, just think of a cool character to make!” I can get away with this because the rules have become so simple that I can easily teach them while we play. I’ve heard more than one person say that D&D looks very involved, which is not necessarily a good thing for a PhD student to take on. Luckily, I can reassure them with confidence that it’s actually a pretty simple game once it gets going.

GenCon PicMore Consumers Means a Better Product

First and foremost, Wizards of the Coast is a business. They sell products, and products require a market. This means that with every iteration of D&D, they have to expand their audience, because as the rules of business dictate: it’s sink or swim. Companies cannot stagnate, they must grow in order to ensure ongoing success.

How can you break the stigma of Dungeons & Dragons and make it more accessible to new customers? You make it easier to play.

A stagnant market is the easiest way to get left behind by competitors, so it’s in the best interest of all D&D players that more people buy Wizards products. How can you break the stigma of Dungeons & Dragons and make it more accessible to new customers? You make it easier to play.

What some people might call dumbing-down, I call good marketing strategy. I would have had serious doubts about trying to recruit new players to D&D 4e –and 3.5 was a mess of it’s own, but with 5e I’ve been able to get three new players, merely a month after it’s launch date.

Dungeons & Dragons Next is not dumbed-down. It’s the game that will extend the community, get new players, and expand the market for more and better D&D products that everyone can enjoy.

What specific rules in D&D 5e will help streamline your D&D sessions for more fun?

  • Jim Haltom

    The advantage/disadvantage mechanic is one the best things about 5th. It has eliminated so much rules overhead it’s ridiculous. No more lists of combat modifiers that you have to learn, and opportunity attacks, while still present, aren’t a laundry list potential provocations.

    Also, saving throws tied to the abilities are awesome as well. Roll a d20, add your modifier and that’s it. Done. As a DM, it has never been easier and faster to come up with encounters and challenges on the fly. This is THE system I’ve wanted D&D to be for a long time. Original D&D feel with modern, streamlined mechanics.

    • Jim, I think you hit the nail on the head. “Streamlined” is the perfect word for it, it’s unfortunate I only thought to use it once in the article. Thanks for the input.

    • Jason Lee

      Streamlined is exactly how I described it to my group. And they love it. And we have a group that has members that started with the red box and ADnD. Others that started with 3 and 3.5. And a couple that have never played before. And guess what? They all love it. The advantage/disadvantage is one of the best mechanics ever. The group is able to play their characters, rather then punch a calculator. My biggest complaint with 3/3.5/PF is rules bloat and that it rewarded min/max players. How so you bring in a new player to that? I heard a line said once that was something like -Just make an interesting character and roll the dice. Quit worrying about what will give you the biggest virtual penis and role play. Something along those lines. Anyway at the end of the day I don’t mind a bit of math in my game, but not game in my math. The moment the numbers overshadow the character, you’re no longer ROLE playing.

  • Kennstan

    Role Playing is awesome I dont care what system or edition you throw at me, jsut let me DM and Im happy! :3

  • Ian Norton

    It certainly speeds up combat, leaving more time for roleplaying. I think I still like Pathfinder best, but it’s no longer what I play exclusively. Good job 5e.

  • Guest

    I played the original red box set when I was 11 (40 years ago), then
    played AD&D, 2nd ed, 3rd ed, and 4th ed. I have to say that, hands
    down and without any doubt, 5th edition is simply the BEST edition that
    has been designed and produced … period.

    From a DM’s
    perspective, since introducing 5th ed to the campaign, I have seen my
    players get more engaged, immersed, and are having shit-loads more fun
    than ever. The whole system is slip-streamed like a Northrop B-2 Spirit
    stealth bomber … it really is that good.

    It’s got the “lines”
    of 2nd and 3rd edition with an “engine” and upgrades that will take your
    game into overdrive. If you want to emotionally cling to the worn out
    rags and decaying carcasses of previous editions so be it, it’s your
    choice after all. But all you are doing is denying your players the
    amazement which 5th edition brings to the table.

    5th edition DnD will now and forever be the gold standard of what a RPG should be …

    • Doker in Zion

      my group has never been more active, we even roll play our resting between sessions on facebook. everybody is more invested in their character and not in maximizing their stats.

  • Nathan Sanford

    I think we’re going to see additional rules get added over time, so for those you like some more advanced rules they’ll be able to add them in.

    The streamlining is a great thing, but I think some of the people who prefer more elaborate systems might come around as more supplements get released, while those who prefer simplicity will be satisfied with the basic rules.

    • Doker in Zion

      I feel like this is a base for your DM and party to make it as involved as you see fit.

  • David

    After reading the PHB and playing for a few weeks now, I have to say that I’m pretty impressed. Reading the playtest adventures was like smelling an old, cherished book and remembering when the game was new. I’ve been playing for quite a while and embraced each new edition in turn; this one evokes elements of each without being complex, and without having to possess intimate knowledge of the system.

    There’s something good and bad to be said about each of the editions. 2nd was flush with new ideas, but super unbalanced. 3rd was a breakthrough with multiclassing, portability, and rules covering everything, but you really needed to map out your character’s advancement from the start, and the bloat was (is?) incredible, making new recruits a project in itself. 4th had fantastic monster customization, but was weirdly bland with PC advancement and too… constricting… while playing. (IMO, don’t flame me! :) )

    We’re currently playing through the Hoard of the Dragon Queen with a newly minted DM, and it’s going smashingly. Even looking through the paths each character might delve down is exciting. There are gaps to be certain, but it feels like those gaps are there for you to fill with imagination, left purposely for that reason. And I can see absolutely where Wizards can easily expand within the existing structure without having to change the game to re-balance. A new Bard college here, a different Warlock patron there, a secretive mage track from this region, a regional totem animal from that one…

    The last thing I will say is that this game is easily picked up with minimal preparation. I rolled up my first PC in 40 minutes, my second in 20 minutes and my 3rd one in about 15 minutes. That means you can pretty much have a pick-up game of D&D5th and be ready to go within about 30 minutes. Or, heaven forbid, your PC is killed by a troll or something, you could be back to gaming a new PC in about the same amount of time – complete with interesting backstory seeds to tie you into your old group – during the same gaming session.

  • Maxwell

    It is “dumbed down” in that the upper levels of build complexity are always going to be bound by the fact that there are only two or three actual feats in any viable build and the rules themselves are designed to interact minimally with the other rules of the game. I think it is going to be incredibly rare that anyone will fine a “new” way to play a character with the rules in the way someone can in 3e and Pathfinder (and to a lesser extent 4e with its many feats and little rules interactions). Everything is too self contained and regimented for that.

    Quite on purpose, WotC has framed a lot of things on their bonus action system. Most extra cool things a character can do needs a bonus action so it is rare that anything will “stack”.

    I admire the design of the game but I am probably going to only run 5e to break in new players and then move on to looser systems I enjoy more.

    • Evan Grantham-Brown

      What is an example of a “new” way to play a character with the 3E rules, using only the Player’s Handbook, that can’t be done with the 5E rules?

      • Thiago Rosa

        Horizon Tripper is a good example – a build using a Ranger, Fighter or Barbarian base to stay relevant in the first levels by tripping and expanding its options by going into Horizon Walker as soon as possible.

        Melee Bard using TWF with armor spikes and a greatsword. Inspire Courage cover the TWF penalty, greatsword makes use of a good Str score and gets good results from Power Attack while armor spikes allow you to combine the best from dual wielding and two-handing.

        Shield Rogue with emphasis on Use Magic Device and wands. Use a shield to increase your Armor Class – you don’t even need proficiency if you choose it right. The light shield or the buckler both allow you to use items in the shield hand – light shield is better, so use that. Max out Use Magic Device, buy/steal as many wands as you can, use them with your shield hand while you wield a rapier or short sword in the main hand.

        I’m sure there are plenty more examples – those are just three famous core-only builds, after all.

        • Evan Grantham-Brown

          I don’t get it. How is any of these a “new way to play?” They all look like “highly optimized ways of playing the same old thing.” The first one is a ranger who makes trip attacks, and then goes into [class from the DMG–you do know the 5E DMG isn’t out yet, right?]. The second one is a melee bard. The third is a rogue specializing in Use Magic Device. They do what they do extremely well, their numbers are cranked to the max, but so what? You can optimize in any system.

          I guess you’re putting a bard in heavy armor and a greatsword, that’s a little bit unusual, but you can do that in 5E just as easily.

          (And if what you’re looking for is a highly dubious exploit that lets you simultaneously dual wield and fight with a great weapon… well, 5E ain’t got that as far as I know, but there’s a highly dubious exploit that lets you simultaneously dual wield and sword-and-board instead. Just get Tavern Brawler for proficiency with improvised weapons and Dual Wielder so you can TWF with non-light weapons. Then declare you’re treating your shield as an improvised weapon. You get the Dual Wielder AC bonus, *and* the shield AC bonus, *and* you bash with the shield for 1d4 with no penalty. And then your DM smacks you upside the head and tells you to knock it off. Why anyone would think such exploits are features rather than bugs is beyond me.)

          • Thiago Rosa

            I don’t see why you even consider these exploits, since (except for the Horizon Tripper) they aren’t even more powerful than common builds – they are just different, it’s just options.

            Also, I think you misunderstand me. I’m not saying 5e is bad or anything. I’m saying 3.5 is more versatile (because it is). Using houserules to make your point just proves further what I was saying.

          • Evan Grantham-Brown

            I’m not using house rules any more than you are. Bards can get heavy armor for the price of a single feat. Tavern Brawler and Dual Wielder are feats straight out of the 5E PHB. The exploits are finding ways to simultaneously dual wield and fight with a greatsword (3E), and dual wield and use a shield (5E); both are theoretically legal, but I wouldn’t expect to get away with either in a real game.

            And you didn’t answer my question. How is any of those a “new way to play?” All I see is a trip fighter, a melee bard, and a wand-using rogue, all of which you can do just fine in 5E.

          • Thiago Rosa

            How do you do a wand-using rogue in 5e? How do you even know how wands work in 5e? O.o

            All of those are new ways to play because they don’t fit the expectations of the base class. You can play a Fighter as a tripper or a charger or a dual wielder in 3.5, because you can focus on those things – a 5e Fighter doesn’t focus, he does everything at once. The 5e Fighter class is a lot better designed than the 3.5 Fighter class, but the point is that 3.5 grants a high level of granularity and several different choices. As another example, standard Rogue just uses a finesse weapon and attacks, but you can do a Str Rogue in 3.5, a brutal alley thug with a big weapon – and you can’t do it in 5e, since sneak attack can only be done with finesse weapons. You could build a tripper Rogue in 3.5 – you can’t do it in 5e. You could build an archer Rogue in 3.5, you can’t do it in 5e.

            Considering a shield an improvised weapon *is* a house rule, that’s my point. It’s a minor quibble and not worth spending much time debating it anyway.

          • Evan Grantham-Brown

            Wands on page 60: http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMDnDBasicRules_v0.1.pdf

            Granted, we only have two so far, but neither one has any restrictions on who can use it.

            I’ll give you the ability of 3E fighters to specialize in one particular maneuver, and of 3E rogues to use Strength. I’ll half give you tripper rogues (you can use Martial Superiority, but you won’t be able to do it very often). You’re wrong on archer rogues, which work much better in 5E than they ever did in 3E. And how do you build a plate-armored wizard in 3E core? Or a Strength-based dual wielder? Or a warlock?

            Most of 3E’s “versatility” comes from giving you ways to circumvent restrictions that 5E doesn’t impose in the first place.

          • Thiago Rosa

            How do you sneak attack with a bow in 5e? A bow is not a finesse weapon. How do Rogues get Martial Superiority? You do a Str-based diual wielder in 3e core by playing a Ranger. You build a plate-amored Wizard in 3e core by taking the armor feats and Still Spell. You can’t play a Warlock… because the concept hadn’t even been *invented* yet at that point.

            You seem to be missing my point by sticking to all these quibbles. What I am telling you is that D&D 3.5 has greater granularity in character creation. That is not even opinion – it’s hard fact. If that is a good or bad thing is another story, but all I’m saying is you have more options in 3e and you clearly do.

          • Evan Grantham-Brown

            “How do you sneak attack with a bow in 5e? A bow is not a finesse weapon.”

            No, it’s a ranged weapon. Sneak attack works with either. Furthermore, you can now sneak attack any time you have an ally next to the target, which makes ranged sneak attack vastly more effective than it was in 3E. 3E archer rogues could get up to 2 sneak attacks at the start of the fight (if you got surprise and won initiative), and that was it unless you could come up with a way to deny the enemy its Dex bonus. 5E archer rogues just need to have the fighter up front doing what fighters do best. They can sneak attack from more than 30 feet away, too.

            “How do Rogues get Martial Superiority?”

            Martial Adept feat. Like I said, it’s a half concession: You don’t get to use it much, but you do get to trip people.

            “Str-based diual wielder in 3e core by playing a Ranger.”

            Then you’re restricted to light armor, so your AC will be mediocre to abysmal. You *can* do it, I guess.

            “You build a plate-amored Wizard in 3e core by taking the armor feats and Still Spell.”

            So you’re going to prepare your somatic spells (which is almost all of them) a level higher? In that case, I withdraw my concessions on the trip fighter, trip rogue, and Strength rogue. If you don’t care about being effective, you can do all of those just fine in 5E.

            “You can’t play a Warlock… because the concept hadn’t even been *invented* yet at that point.”

            So? It’s still something you can do in 5E core that you can’t in 3E core. And some more: Lawful barbarian, Lawful bard, Chaotic paladin, Chaotic monk. Dragonborn.

            3E does have more granularity, but it also has more arbitrary restrictions. Furthermore, 5E has wider scope–an extra class, more races, more builds for its classes. Granularity is not the only thing that goes into versatility.

          • Thiago Rosa

            You know, even a Wizard that prepares all his spells as one level above and has almost no feats to speak of is still better than a non-Wizard in 3.5. That’s not a good thing, though.

            I didn’t know about being able to sneak attack with a ranged weapon in 5e, that’s good. I really don’t see how being easier to sneak attack is relevant to the point I’m making. You’re trying to make this a conversation about “x is better than y”, which is not I was saying from the start.

            Also, you keep mentioning feats, but they are a completely optional rule. In some games (I dare say most games) you won’t be able to play a tripper Rogue, as bad a concepts as that is in 5e or not.

            Yes, granularity is not the only thing that goes into versatility. 3.5 is still more versatile, because you can do all that before even beginning to delve into optional rules. You can also play almost every monster in the Monster Manual.

          • Maxwell

            A: feats themselves are technically an optional rule
            B: One feat is a huge cost of entry. Recall that a full bard build will only have two or three feats realistically.

        • Andre Denofrio

          i’m sure that you didn’t played RPG with a good DM.

          • Thiago Rosa

            You’re wrong. Also, your English is terrible. Also, you’re incredibly rude. Keep your baseless assumptions bottled up. I would ask ‘please’, but you clearly don’t deserve the courtesy.

      • Maxwell

        In 3.5, it took a while before people discovered things like the chain fighter trip build or started trying to build “cleric-zillas” and the like. In pathfinder I find a new build every time I go up to build a new character (due to all the feat slots). I built a bard around maxing out its defense then specializing in effects that divert attention to him. The time away from the table is more rewarding.

        5e does not want “new” builds to exist. It only wants the prescribed builds that were already carefully considered by the designers when they built the game. It is a vastly more controlled design philosophy and that results in me enjoying the game less.

  • levlafayette

    Can’t say I’m particularly convinced by the argument. People, including new players, come to the table for different reasons. Simplifying rules where there is no loss on other metrics is obvious an advantage for efficiency and ought to be encouraged. But simplifying rules which reduces other metrics (e.g., skill system, tactical simulations) will be unsatisfactory for others.

    Simplified rules may lead to more time needed, because they won’t be able to conver the variety of situations satisfactorily – you’ll end up playing Magic Tea Party. More efficient rules will lead to more players, not easier rules. And more players definitely does not mean a products, just like more readers of Hagar The Horrible does not make it greater literature than the Poetic and Prose Edda.

  • David Blalock

    Last time I checked, an rpg rules set only needed to answer three basic questions. Did I hit it? How hard? and Is it dead yet? Thats all a rules system needs to do because all the rest is imagination and storytelling.

    • Thiago Rosa

      Last time you checked was probably in the 70s, then.

      • David Blalock

        So basically what your saying is that you have no imagination. If you need a rules system to tell you what your character can and cant do.

        Don’t get me wrong, I prefer Pathfinder and Shadowrun 4th edition to most other systems. But when you gets right down to it the only thing you really need from the game system is to resolve the question of “did i succeed”. Else wise you’re left with “Bobby: I shot you…; Jimmy: No you didn’t!”

        • Thiago Rosa

          No, David. What I’m telling you is that RPG design has evolved long past ‘did I succeed’. Few modern RPG systems are simply challenge resolution engines – they enhance the narrative as part of the game system. Pathfinder and Shadowrun are old school games in several ways, still rooted in simulation and challenge resolution – they are good games and I love them, but there is a lot more to game design than ‘did I succeed’. In fact, D&D 5e is a good example. While it is basically just a challenge resolution system, it uses many of the same reviled ideas from 4e and garners praise simply by changing presentation.

          I’m not saying I have no imagination. I’m saying good games enhance your imagination with their rules and bad games hinder it. I’m a big fan of Pathfinder, but while DMing it I have had to explain to some players several times that build X or action Y were bad ideas, since the character wasn’t built for that. Playing, say, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, you get to say ‘yes’ a lot more often and to build a story *with* the players instead of building a story *for* the players.

          Basically, my imagination is just fine, thank you. It’s just that gaming is broader than you think.

          • David Blalock

            Sounds to me like you’re more of a rule player than a Role player.

          • Thiago Rosa

            If you believe in that false dichotomy, you really haven’t left the 70s (and probably didn’t even bother to read what I said). I’ll leave you alone with your prejudice before you tell me to get off your lawn. Cheers.

          • David Blalock

            Yep, rule player. Now get off my lawn. :-)

  • cjleete

    I playtested Next awhile, I was pleased by the flow of the game, and was heartened to know the developers were using our feedback to tweak the game before it went to print. The biggest turnoff for me in 3-4 E; especially starting in 3.5, was the degeneration of the game into a miniatures wargame, rather than a roleplaying game. If you want to play with minis, lemme know, I’ll happily dig my Battletech stuff out of the attic. All my D&D stuff from 3.0 through 4E went to charity.

    • Thiago Rosa

      Yeah, that degenerated Gary Gygax, what was he thinking using miniatures for his D&D games, right?

  • Full Time Slacker

    In my opinion, the best thing about the new rules is Bounded Accuracy. Having waded through the mire of high-level play in 3rd and 4th editions, I can be confident that the epic slowdowns that come with epic tier combat are a thing of the past thanks to this mechanic.

  • BuggerOff

    4e? Junk! 5e? Crap. I honestly feel bad for all those who liked 4e, they got the same screw job from WotC as the former 3.X players. The game is dumbed down. There is no doubt that 3.0-3.75 could be a bit simpler and more streamlined, but not in the way 5e pretty much said ‘hey you people, you are too dumb to learn anything semi complex (or you are just philosophy majors)’. Best thing about it? The move before, after, during your round action. Should have always been a part of 3.x. Anyways, I’m sure that the 4th graders here who love 5e, like Mr Kropff, will of course find fault with this rant, but then again I do own and have played every bleeping version of D&D.

  • Hanatash

    You haven’t really debunked anything with this article, you’re just making excuses as to why a dumbed down system is better. Whether that’s true or not depends solely on the group playing the game. As it stands, there isn’t a chance in Nine Hells I’d ever convince my 3.P players to switch to 5th edition. The fact that there is no SRD or OGL (even if they promised to bring them back) only throws fuel to the fire as no one is willing to buy any of the game products when there’s a steady stream of quality content being released for Pathfinder or better, more interesting systems altogether.

    I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the direction 5E is taking. I’m sure 5E will garner a large fanbase, just as 4E did. But if they thought they were gonna win back the hearts and minds of all the players they tossed aside with their “streamlining” of 4E, they were sorely mistaken as 5E is just as bad, if not worse in that aspect. A massive amount of players actually like complexity—it’s what drew us to D&D in the first place. If we wanted to simplify things, we’d play a different system.

    So yes, D&D Next IS dumbed down—your premise is wrong and you’ve said nothing to prove otherwise—but that’s not necessarily a bad thing depending on the group. Ultimately, there’s no loss to either side of the playerbase (although Hasbro may end up being less than satisfied with their profits, but that’s also unlikely). Those of us who enjoy the complexity of the old systems will stick to what we have (maybe steal a subsystem here and there) and those who don’t are free to move on if that’s what floats your goat.

  • Joshua Adkison

    What a load of tosh. Dumbing down the game might bring in a few new fair weather players, but you continue to alienate your core demographics just like the pen and paper MMO that was 4th edition. From what I’ve experienced 5th edition is incredibly shallow compared to previous incarnations.

    • The core demographic seizes to be a core as products take on more popularity, and D&D is more popular than it ever has been, ever. So “a few fair weather players” isn’t really the concern. The concern is staying in business. If WotC could have stayed in business by catering to the same demographic they were 20 years ago, I imagine they would.

      Alienating a demographic for a larger audience is a valid move. There is an analogy that is relevant here involving making an omelette.

      • Aaron

        Thats what I see in 5e. Dumbing down the game no more feats, Dumbing down the game ability score selection this is more organized play issues, Dumbing down the game advantage and disadvantage like adding that +2 was so hard, Dumbing down the game attacks of opportunity, Dumbing down the game skills points. The ONLY good mechanic is standing up does not take a full move action. This is why (in my area) 5e is basically dead. We played the playtests in hopes it would get better and it got more and more vanilla. Meanwhile Pathfinder has 28 tables this month and most overflow into a second table.

  • Aaron

    I remain unconvinced however people like it and you should play what you like. I dont like chocolate ice cream. That does not mean that the stores should not have any chocolate it just means I will not be buying it. Unless my wife wants some.

  • David Amberson

    Okay, it’s not dumbed down, yet somehow characters advance faster then EVER before, and there are no rules for multi-classing. Yeah, you go up super fast and can’t do anything but follow a set progression table. So where is the creativity? Where is the intelligent design? D&D next is just more hack and slash. Basically, it’s D&D for morons! You are right, you didn’t dumb it down, You made it for idiots and morons!

    • Rules for multi classing are in chapter 6. And every edition for over 20 years has had progression tables, so I’m not sure how that is a critique of 5e.

      If characters are advancing fast, that is on the DM and the group and judging from the falsehoods in your comment, I’d venture a guess that you don’t read the book much.

      Slimming down the rules opens up possibilities for creating new rules and content, exactly what creativity is. Having more rules doesn’t encourage creativity, it stifles it.

      I don’t think you’re talking about the same game.