Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Bedrockgames · Jul 2, 2012

Hussar said:
But, by having mechanics the will automatically sideline your character, you are baking "rationing fun" into the mechanics. Take a poster child here - 3e rogue sneak attack.

Now, from a believability perspective, it makes perfect sense that your rogue can't sneak certain creatures. Fair enough. But, that means that there will be significant periods of time when your rogue character's effectiveness is hugely reduced - to the point where you aren't really doing much of anything - sorry, d6+2 points of damage once per round vs a CR 8 creature isn't really doing a whole lot.

Now, you didn't choose this. You had absolutely no say in this, other than the fact that you chose to play this class. The DM decided what creatures to use and the game designers decided that you're not tall enough for this ride.

To me, that's a poster child for mechanics that are not as good as they could be. If the rogue player chose to be less effective against certain opponents in exchange for something else, then fair enough. That's on him. But, he didn't have that choice. It was baked right into the class.

Now, it might not come up for several sessions. No worries. But, then you have a four hour session where you have five encounters in a row with undead (for example - maybe a zombie horde is attacking). The rogue player just got benched for virtually the entire session through no choice of his own.

How much is that "verisimitude" worth? Is it worth having someone ride the pines for four hours? To me, the answer is a resounding NO. Not being able to do a lot in a given encounter? Ok, that happens. Not a big deal. I have a character that just doesn't have the skill set to really contribute to this particular scenario. Cool, no worries. But the mechanics should never sideline players for hours on end.

And that's what unbalanced mechanics do.

To me this is fun. There are going to be periods in the campaign where my particular thing isn't all that useful. It makes it that much cooler when I do shine. I get that this doesn't work for you, but that doesn't mean its bad design. It just isn't a style of play Hussar likes.

And this is a prodocut of choice, product of the most important choice a player makes: what class to play.

Lets also keep in mind, in most campaigna, the Gm is expected to consider the strengths and weaknesses of different party members. So more likely you will have one or two undead encounters but not the five (or there would be things thrown in there for the rogue to do at various stages----rogue might not be good at fighting undead, but he is pretty darn good at breaking into the vampire's lair and clearing traps). Personally that one five encounter game wouldn't bother me, but I realize in most campaigns that prefer this style the five encounters with undead wouldn't occur.

Also, in my mind, this player isn't doing nothing this entire time. He is still in the fight, just playing a minor support role more than anything else. A lot of people can handle that just fine for portions of a game or campaign because over the long haul it balances out.

I want it to matter which monsters the gm throws at me. If any given encounter is going to assure me the same amount of input and shine time, to me that is dull.

Sadras · Jul 2, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
you are explicitely saying that you want a wheel that isn't round.

Okay, I ask you this - the people who play OE, 1E, 2E, 3E - do they have a wheel that isn't quite round? Does WotC want to include them in this edition? Must WotC make a round wheel to include them or would they come with an imperfect, yet familiar and polished wheel?

Add in the 3.5 Polymorph spells - that will unbalance things in a hurry. Throw in Divine Metamagic and Persistent Spell. Again unbalance in a hurry.

It's easier to add, an extra bit onto those spells which would greatly increase the risk/cost for using such magic. For instance in our 4E campaign we added a few details regarding magical items because we do not like the system as is:

We took the option of inherent bonuses; all items of level 1-5 fade in power within 1-5 years; items above 5th level are all unique (1 in existence, avoids the stoopid spamming of magical items); Items above 5th level still fade, but in order to make them permanent the Enchanter must sacrifice a surge permanently (reflects the cost);...etc
These could all be options/add-ons modules.

You could do the same with Magic or specifically the Polymorph and Persistence spells - introduce costs or power them down or go drastic and say that they simply dont exist.

I'm good either way, truthfully. I just believe that if you want to attract the old schoolers - WotC should start with something familiar, keeping some of the quirks of the past and let the modules balance it all out for the Fourthers.

Minigiant · Jul 2, 2012

Personally, I think a lot of problems and arguments will be lowered once we get an example of a module.

I think the whole issue will be best solved like with an idea I mentioned back when D&D Next was announces.

Have edition packets that group modules and rules that simulate the various edition.

Core + "these modules" = AD&D
Core + "this and that module" = 3E
Core + "those modules" = 4E

The issue at that part is making a core that works and can be plugged into.

And making edition modules that fans of the edition actually want and not what you think they want.

erleni · Jul 2, 2012

Harlock said:
How was DMing the playtest a chore for you? Actually, for those that felt 4e was easy to DM but the playtest wasn't, I'd like to ask you that same question. Genuinely curious here, not setting you up for a silly internet argument.

In 4e, due to the inherent balanced math, you pretty much know from the start if you're throwing an easy, medium, challenging or overwhelming encounter at the PCs (aside from a few heavy-control monsters like succubi and dracoliches) and building up each kind of encounter is extremely easy.
As a 4e DM I don't even prepare encounters anymore. I just let the story flow and create encounters on the fly when they happen. Knowing more or less the difficulty of the encounter, while it enfolds I already start to plan the next steps.

3e and now D&D next are a more capricious beast in my experience. They are more swingy and as a DM I don't really get a gut feeling about how an encounter will go before I actually see the rolls, so I have less time to plan the next steps.

Having not so much time out-of-game to create my adventures I heavily improvise during play and getting some more time to think is really important for me. DM with more time may plan far more or go for a sandbox game (I discussed this with Emerikol on WotC's board) and then will not get this benefit.

Aberzanzorax · Jul 2, 2012

As someone who favors 3e but plays and enjoys 4e, I support the message of the OP, but it's not enough.

Looked at only as "they need to focus on these also" for4e players, I agree.

5e also needs to do other things (cast resurrection on sacred cows) killed in 4e for one.

While this isn't the thread for those considerations, I think it important to remember that those cows might at times be at odds with the goals of the op...and a balance between those and those of the op would be ideal...perhaps accomplished with modularity.

5e needs all of the OP's items...but it needs more too.

thecasualoblivion · Jul 2, 2012

Minigiant said:
Personally, I think a lot of problems and arguments will be lowered once we get an example of a module.

I think the whole issue will be best solved like with an idea I mentioned back when D&D Next was announces.

Have edition packets that group modules and rules that simulate the various edition.

Core + "these modules" = AD&D
Core + "this and that module" = 3E
Core + "those modules" = 4E

The issue at that part is making a core that works and can be plugged into.

And making edition modules that fans of the edition actually want and not what you think they want.

I'm not convinced at this point. The sort of modules I'd be looking for would be on the level(not the specifics) of removing the core magic system and replacing it with AEDU, or throwing out the entire monster system and building a more 4E-like replacement. Not these exact things, mind you, but something equivalent. The base core as revealed in the playtest is so far from my D&D tastes that I would require massive changes from the modularity, and I've seen no signs of that being in the pipeline. My issues with the core rules are beyond the realm of minor tweaks.

thecasualoblivion · Jul 2, 2012

Aberzanzorax said:
As someone who favors 3e but plays and enjoys 4e, I support the message of the OP, but it's not enough.

Looked at only as "they need to focus on these also" for4e players, I agree.

5e also needs to do other things (cast resurrection on sacred cows) killed in 4e for one.

While this isn't the thread for those considerations, I think it important to remember that those cows might at times be at odds with the goals of the op...and a balance between those and those of the op would be ideal...perhaps accomplished with modularity.

5e needs all of the OP's items...but it needs more too.

It's not enough, but WotC has been doing a FAR worse job of appealing to 4E fans than they have ressurecting sacred cows lately.

Neonchameleon · Jul 2, 2012

Hussar said:
But, by having mechanics the will automatically sideline your character, you are baking "rationing fun" into the mechanics. Take a poster child here - 3e rogue sneak attack.

Now, from a believability perspective, it makes perfect sense that your rogue can't sneak certain creatures. Fair enough. But, that means that there will be significant periods of time when your rogue character's effectiveness is hugely reduced - to the point where you aren't really doing much of anything - sorry, d6+2 points of damage once per round vs a CR 8 creature isn't really doing a whole lot.

And I would add 9 times out of 10 that nine times out of ten blocking the rogue's sneak attack makes no damn sense at all. Take the humble zombie. Is it really the case that its neck is no more vulnerable than its guts? Or the lich. Apparently they can't be sneak attacked either - because the brain doesn't matter to a powerful spellcaster. The only monsters that should be immune to sneak attack are those with no discernable anatomy at all. Oozes and only oozes. And even then parts stretch as they flow. Precision hits the weaker parts.

So no I don't agree that from a believablilty perspective blocking sneak attack makes sense. It makes less than no sense to claim that a skeleton has no joints. Or a Golem has no wrists or articulated joints. For bonus marks, explain to me why precision damage wouldn't be extremely useful against a clockwork soldier. Or why a crystaline construct can't be shattered by a lucky critical hit. Or a limb won't break off a walking tree from a lucky hit.

Immunities destroy fluff every bit as much as they support it. And the rogue's Sneak Attack is a particularly extreme example of why.

Sadras said:
Okay, I ask you this - the people who play OE, 1E, 2E, 3E - do they have a wheel that isn't quite round?

I'd say so, yes. Despite Gygax's explicit efforts to polish the 1e wheel because it not being round was a problem.

Does WotC want to include them in this edition? Must WotC make a round wheel to include them or would they come with an imperfect, yet familiar and polished wheel?

I think most of the players of older editions are in practice more interested in the shape of the car than of the wheels. 4e players are generally interested IME in the wheels and the engine.

It's easier to add, an extra bit onto those spells which would greatly increase the risk/cost for using such magic.

So we attach a rider to every single spell.

Lord Mhoram · Jul 2, 2012

Balesir said:
Are you using the guidelines in the DMG for scaling encounters? Of course the encounters in published modules are scaled for 5 characters of "Adventure Target" level; if you have more characters, fewer characters or different level characters you need to scale the encounters if you want the same level of challenge. It's not difficult, and with the Monster Builder it's not very time consuming, either.

Tallifer said:
2. One player and one main character is done simply. First reduce the encounter level/numbers (the transparent monster blocks are extremely easy to level down); second give the player one or two henchmen/servants/hirelings/eternal companions/butlers/squires/squaddies.

Thanks for the answers but Krust had the right of it.

The point of my approach is that the wife can grab the module read it once, and play it as written with maybe a few adjustments on the fly. All the modification is on the character, not the modules (lots less work for her).

Lord Mhoram · Jul 2, 2012

Upper_Krust said:
I like the multiclassing in 4E, its just so simple and removes the annoying metagaming conceit of 'characters' taking one level in this class and one level in that class just to gain some incremental bonus. Its Conan the Barbarian, not Conan the Barbarian-Fighter-Gladiator-Rogue-Weaponmaster.

That was one thing I never had a problem with. I see levels as discrete skill-and-power packages. No one in character was "a fighter" or such. We also killed multiclassing penalties - you took a level because it worked for the character idea you had - no matter what class/feat/etc that needed. Classes for me have never been a description of a character no more than a feat or power choice would be.

Right now I am playing (in 3.x/Pathfinder) a gestalt Monk/Sorcerer. Every sorcerer spell is refluffed as a superch'i ability (Shu-do-ken fireball FTW). The character is a wandering monastic priest, who happens to use martial arts and ch'i - she never refers to herself as a Monk or sorcerer.

When first tried 4E, I built a monk with trading a ranger ability for AC to replace armor, and a weapon called "martial arts" for 1d8. Then used the ranger build. (this is a week or two after the first PH came out). Worked fairly well.

One of the things I really liked about 4E was the ability to refluff (or in HERO terms define the special effects of the mechanic).