Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Neonchameleon · Jul 1, 2012

First, thanks for all the feedback, especially the critical parts. I will say two things straight off.

First the feedback is based on the idea that you are supposed to be able to play any edition of D&D in D&D Next. The feedback is based explicitely on that. If D&D Next were to have a different stated design goal/philosophy (e.g. "Back to the Dungeon") my comments would not be relevant.

Dice4Hire said:
I have heard this said a lot and just do not believe it. Could it possibly be they are downplaying their innovations from 4E so as not to offend the large anti-4E customers they are trying to get back?

I think trying to downplay 4E is a lot more likely than saying 2 The designers do not know 4E"

If so they are going a remarkably stupid way about things. The Monte Cook "Passive Perception" issue was bad enough. But when Tom LaPille was actively deceptive about the way 4e worked that was stupid. If he hadn't mentioned the 4e Action Economy or had just talked about the removal of minor actions as a change from 4e I don't think anyone would have cared. But the "doesn't understand 4e" is the polite interpretation. (The impolite one is "actively and intentionally deceptive about 4e, deliberately annoying 4e fans").

TrippyHippy said:
Balance only really matters if you view the game in purely tactical terms.
...
The point when you say that no one character should dominate a scene relates solely to the notion that every scene is essentially a combat one, and that players cannot contribute unless their characters have powers.

False on both counts. Every scene needs a source of tension. But "Sit on the fighter's head - he's a fighter and therefore shouldn't be allowed to talk" is an issue. (See, for instance, the Decker problem I outlined)

I refute this suggestion, as there are more things a character can do beyond special effects, and the more you define characters by powers, the less able players are of playing the game any other way.

And I not only call your suggestion false, I call it actively insulting.

DogBackward said:
This is simply not true. So, yes, a Cleric who worships the God of War can, for one hour, become about as good as a Fighter in damage output. Not in accuracy, just damage, and he does so by using a once-per-day ability. And uses another once-per-day ability in order to have as much HP as the Fighter.

The problem here isn't that the Fighter isn't the best at Fighting, it's that for some reason, people love ignoring the fact that (in any normal game) there will be more than one fight in a day.

You know how many fights the Warpriest in the Caves of Chaos got through with one casting of Spiritual Hammer? Six.

Yes, you can almost match me in damage and health (but again, not accuracy, which is huge in a flat-math system) for an hour.

You are missing one unexplained point of to hit. You also have one unexplained point of AC extra. Even bigger for being on the battle line.

If you're playing a Fighter, you're doing so because the main thing you want to do is hit things.

Well you might be. I'm playing a fighter because I have a character concept in mind and fighter's the closest match.

And besides... how much "flexibility" does the 4e Fighter have? All of their powers equate to "Kill More Stuff" or "Be Hard to Kill", just like the Fighter from any other edition. How is this a new thing?

As for the Guardian theme... the Fighter in 4e has dozens (maybe even hundreds by now) of abilities that use the same type of action. Why is this somehow a bad thing? It's called opportunity cost.

Becuase the Fighter's interrupt attacks are notably good as the entire class is built with that in mind. The second Guardian feat stands in isolation.

There's also the fact that, again, you don't need abilities that specifically say "Give this bonus to your teammate" in order to use teamwork.

Of course you don't. They just encourage it.

And if you don't work together? You'll be less effective. That's the way it works, and trying to enforce teamwork is artificial and boring.

Strawman. You can't enforce teamwork.

Okay, right... repeat after me: "Play. Test." Do you really expect a full complement of options and abilities in a very early Alpha playtest. Of course not.

Not for design. A skeleton, yes.

However, there have been very specific talks about what's to come; like special combat maneuvers for the Fighter, different abilities for the Rogue. It was states long ago that the designers specifically chose to use the low-option, simple version of the Fighter.

It was. And, if you didn't notice, there was a recent article on maneuvers.

Y'know, for the people that like playing simple characters (which you can't really do easily in 4e).

You're years out of date. See the Slayer for details.

Also, remember that this is level one. Level one characters in 4e are reduced to spamming their at-wills just as much, and it gets just as boring.

Did you follow the linked At Will skirmish? You at least can have two distinctly different options.

And you wanna talk about inflated hit points?

I'm not sure I did that per se? Context matters.

Have... have you actually played the playtest? "Ease of play" is the thing that people are shouting their praise for all over the internet.

Both played and DM'd. And speed of play is not the same as ease of play. It's the speed that's been praised, and it is faster. I stated specific reasons why ease wasn't so good. And why ease works in 4e - notably I have literally never needed to look something up that wasn't setting specific in over a year.

Oh, and for your "terrain" and no forced movement... do your players never improvise? You don't have to look at a character sheet to know that a normal person can try to push another person around.

Of course they do! However a push means you aren't attacking. It's also a glaring case of "Mother, May I?" And is literally something I tried in the playtest (pushing rats into the pit) and got no benefit out of.

In addition to that, the fact that just about every 4e enemy has a list of special abilities to keep track of is horrible.

I've seldom had trouble *shrug*

How many ways are there to easily prevent 4e monsters from using their powers? I'll give you a hint; not many.

Once more I have to ask "Did you even read my post?" And "do you play 4e?" To stop the kobold skirmishers, knock them down or pin them in place with defender abilities. Melee the artillery. Immobilise or slow and kite the Brutes. Mark, mark, and Defender Aura anything. There are plenty of ways.

Most skirmishers are built around the principle "Do low damage unless they have combat advantage when they do high damage". So stop them flanking. Artillery is based around the principle "Do high damage at range and low in melee". Modern lurkers are based round the "Attack and be vulnerable every other turn" principle. Brutes are "High damage in melee, none or low at range".

GX.Sigma said:
and you have already made up your mind to hate anything that's different from 4e.

Less of the Ad Hominem please. I run WHFRP. I'm looking seriously at 13th Age right now as a step beyond 4e. D&D next has stated design criteria.

Zustiur said:
Would you like me to recount the number of times (out of combat) where my character has been completely useless because I didn't have the required skills? I'm quite serious about this. I don't recall a single skill challenge that wasn't a total bore-fest for me. Why? because inevitably the skills required to complete the challenge aren't on my list of trained skills.

So find a way to use your trained skills by engaging with the fiction. Skill challenges are, I'll admit, very badly presented and often badly run. And how on earth do you know they can only be used once in the challenge in advance?

This is why I haven't gone into detail about them.

See my previous point. Often 'what you're best at' is not applicable in a skill challenge. "Mental genius with a flair for knowledge? no use here buddy, we need endurance and athletics to chase the baddies across the rooftops."

Streetwise and history to work out a shortcut.

"Dextrous athlete? Sorry, this is a social skill challenge, go play in the corner."

You mean you took no social skills? That's a choice.

Ah, another pet peeve. Got a move that pushes your opponent? Cool, is there anything to push him into this battle? No?[/qupte]

Then I'm not DMing See my notes on encounter design on the fly.

So... push him anyway. Yeah, that makes sense. And seriously, what happened to open battlefields, large chambers and other normal every day places that don't involve pits, lava, patches of ice etc?

Click to expand...

How about stairs, roads, hills, bric-a-brack on the floor, kerbs and train tracks, roads (especially with open sewers the way medaeval towns had)? Looking round my flat I can see two stairs, one road, a cooker (not on but a hearth would be), a pile of things that would work as caltrops that need cleaning up (ahem!). You must fight in some very boring areas.

(Actually, that's a key point of difference between playgroups. It sounds to me like you're firmly in the camp of 'mechanics must provide the fun')

Click to expand...

I'm firmly in the camp of "Everything should provide the fun".

Because 4E isn't tedious and grindy? What?? Escalated hit points? Compared with what? 4E? Are you serious?

Click to expand...

The ogre and the leaders, yes the hit points are escalated. And the sheer number of orcs involved is ... impressive. But you're right, that was a bad way of putting things and I should edit.

2) Having these features present in such quantity (as much as every room in published adventures...) contributes to my broken verisimilitude.

Click to expand...

I'm not defending the WoTC published adventures.

You certainly did a good job of describing 4E, but your impressions of where 5E is going, and your feelings as to which direction is the right direction... well that's where we disagree.

Click to expand...

My feeling as to where 5e is going is round in circles. I wouldn't mind so much if it had a vision but the claimed vision is that you can play any edition in 5e.

Steely_Dan · Jul 1, 2012

Stormonu said:
While I certainly applaud the OP for voicing his criticisms of 5E, I have to counter that most of the things he listed I do not care about or they actually drove me away from being involved with 4E.

I'll just say I dissent with the original post and leave it at that. I like about 80% of the way the 5E playtest is now

Yeah, same here, my only fear is too much changing due to pre-4th Ed hating zealot feedback.

Though with that play-test you have enough to use all your other edition stuff and twiddle about.

Tallifer · Jul 1, 2012

DogBackward said:
The problem here isn't that the Fighter isn't the best at Fighting, it's that for some reason, people love ignoring the fact that (in any normal game) there will be more than one fight in a day. Yes, you can almost match me in damage and health (but again, not accuracy, which is huge in a flat-math system) for an hour. When that hour's up? When your spells run out, I'm still a raging badass.

First of all, again, limited uses per day. Yes, the Wizard can Charm Person... but not only can they only do it once, they can't do it without pissing off whoever they did it to; you'll note that the target of Charm Person knows they were charmed. So yeah, the Wizard could simply Charm the merchant... but if you don't want to be chased out of town, you might want to let someone with a social Background use Diplomacy instead.

That sort of system only works for one kind of group and campaign. Many campaigns in which I have played only have one fight per day or per week. Roleplaying, mystery solving, traveling and out-of-character time constraints leave little time for a fight each week.

DogBackward said:
If you're playing a Fighter, you're doing so because the main thing you want to do is hit things. Gaining the ability to "Kill More Stuff" is exactly what a Fighter wants.

And besides... how much "flexibility" does the 4e Fighter have? All of their powers equate to "Kill More Stuff" or "Be Hard to Kill", just like the Fighter from any other edition. How is this a new thing?

Actually in every edition since 1982, the Fighters in our parties have known that their role is to defend the more vulnerable party members. Killing stuff is only part of that. Indeed I really liked the mechanical emphasis which the Fourth Edition put on that aspect of Fighting.

JamesonCourage · Jul 1, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
True story: there's an Arcana utility power in 4e that lets you use your Arcana check in place of Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. My character's Arcana check is +16.

Not that that's relevant to fighters.

Arcane Mutterings? Looked it up, and that's what came up. Does the Fighter have stuff like this? Use Athletics for social, or attack bonus for exploration? Again, not saying the Fighter doesn't -I'm curious. As always, play what you like

TrippyHippy · Jul 1, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
False on both counts. Every scene needs a source of tension.

And I not only call your suggestion false, it's actively insulting

There isn't any insult in anything I have said, so I'm not sure where you are coming from. Let me be plain - if this new edition turns out with anything like the design priorities that you are describing, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. I'm not the only one, evidentally. If you cannot accept that, then the only thing people can do with you is ignore you. Sorry about that.

Balesir · Jul 1, 2012

Zustiur said:
As DogBackwards pointed out; EARLY ALPHA. I'd love to know how many powers had been developed at an equivalent stage of 4E.

Yes, it's an early alpha (which I'll come back to), but in 4e much of the interest and role functionality in each class is baked into its class features (mark, sneak attack, healing word, etc.), not into selectable powers. In general, I think [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] is right that it's already clear that D&DNext won't address the features of 4e that many of us found very attractive.

I think a positive note is omitted, though, in as much as DDN might bring something else to D&D that many of us find attractive and fun. That is really why I am following the playtest, now; it's clear that DDN won't have many or most of the key elements I liked in 4e, but will it have something new and fun that I might enjoy?

So far, the situation is "I don't know". I see nothing, yet, but it is only early days.

Zustiur said:
And often unhelpful. Only one bad guy left? I guess the wizard will cast magic missile then, since everything else generally relies on area effect greater than 1x1. On the flip side, in my pathfinder game, the fighter, ranger and rogue spent every available round making basic attacks, and it was intense. There wasn't a single boring moment, despite the 'boring' mechanics.

Your experiences of 1st level 4e combat were very different from mine. I remember the Wizard using Cloud of Daggers and the Fighter and Paladin pushing, pulling and kiting the remaining monster around, into and through it for extra damage at every opportunity - at the same time as they carefully kept him away from his escape route.

Zustiur said:
Ah, another pet peeve. Got a move that pushes your opponent? Cool, is there anything to push him into this battle? No? So... push him anyway. Yeah, that makes sense. And seriously, what happened to open battlefields, large chambers and other normal every day places that don't involve pits, lava, patches of ice etc? I can walk around all day without seeing anything remotely like that, yet in 4E-world, they're around every corner. What's up with that?

NC has already pointed out that real worlds have plenty of clutter, but even without them there is always a reason to push, pull or slide in 4e combat due to the way the teamwork works. The players I run for are constantly trying to put enemies where they want them for a myriad reasons that would exist in a battle on a blank, flat plain:

- to get, lose or set up a possibility for flanking (especially for the Rogue),

- to push enemies into or through damaging effects set up by the Wizard or the Warlock,

- to group monsters such that area effects from the other characters will be more effective,

- to move enemies such that their attacks (especially area attacks) will be less effective...

...the list goes on. A "useless" forced movement effect would indeed be tedious, if it ever became a factor - but it doesn't.

Zustiur said:
(Actually, that's a key point of difference between playgroups. It sounds to me like you're firmly in the camp of 'mechanics must provide the fun')

I would say "the mechanics must support the fun". If they don't, what's the point of them?

jbear · Jul 1, 2012

TrippyHippy said:
There isn't any insult in anything I have said, so I'm not sure where you are coming from. Let me be plain - if this new edition turns out with anything like the design priorities that you are describing, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. I'm not the only one, evidentally. If you cannot accept that, then the only thing people can do with you is ignore you. Sorry about that.

I don't think we should be ignoring each other.

When we do that a conversation or a discussion becomes a monologue spouted atop a soapbox.

It's fine that you have a style of game that you like. But it is also important for those that are not happy with the direction things are going share their complaints/feelings/impressions.

Isn't that the point?

And shouldn't we be happy if they can come up with a system flexible enough that we can run it the way we like it?

Well, for that to happen we can't ignore each other.

For the record: I don't have the impression WotC is ignoring anyone here, or any malice on their part towards 4e or 4e fans. That would be my biggest point of divergence from the OPs opinions.

This is the very beginning of a process. And their intentions are pretty clear from where I'm standing. So I think it's good that we provide feedback good and bad. But no need to jump to the gloom or the doom so quickly.

Time will tell if I'm wrong or right.

FireLance · Jul 1, 2012

Admittedly, the playtest is rather ... shall we say ... simple? However, it is ... somewhat(?) ... to be expected, as it is supposed to be a playtest of the core rules.

I would certainly like to see a module for ~~encounter~~ powers that are regained after a short rest. I don't think it would be unbalancing to add them, as long as all classes and races are given approximately equal abilities, and the DM is given guidelines on how to adjust the monsters so that the game doesn't get too easy.

Frankly, whether I decide to adopt 5e or whether I decide to stay with 4e (and maybe write supplements for the other 4e fans who share my taste in gaming systems

) is more likely to depend on fundamental system assumptions such as bounded accuracy (which, frankly, I do not like :erm: