D&D 4E D&D Fluff Wars: 4e vs 5e

MechaTarrasque said:

One thing that I both liked and disliked about 4e is that the universe is remarkably dark, more so than even Ravenloft, but almost no one ever seems to notice. Most of the universe is the elemental chaos, which is basically populated by CE types, except for the Abyss which is populated by extra evil CE types. Then you have the Astral Sea, which has as many Evil (formerly known as LE and NE) types as the rest of the alignments (which includes as many CE types as either good types). All that stands between the world being completely destroyed are the primal spirits and the fact the evil guys are all engaged in a convoluted WWE soap opera so they don't have time to snuff it out (as soon as I beat my archenemy, my other archenemy, and my best frenemy (and my best frememy's archenemy), I will get around to destroying the world).

Speaking of that, one thing I really liked about 4e is that if you binge watched a couple of years of WWE programming, everything about 4e made sense.

Click to expand...

"Point of Lights" is certainly a dark fantasy, which is not everyone's speed. But I did find that I liked the darker stuff, even in Forgotten Realms, which my crew still plays. I did realize though that through game play, they were not into the dark stuff like I am except for in particular situations so I did have to lighten it up for them though as well as tone down the nastiness of some of the NPCs so they could feel like the good guys were good guys. Right now they are collaborating with various other groups that is looking to restore the light and having a ton of fun in the process.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

Imaro said:

I also don't think it helped any that it was scattered across not just numerous books but numerous products as well.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. My wife has gotten to the point where when I get a new book, she ask, "Another one? What excuse do you have for this one?". Then I show her and she goes "Oh, that is where they put that. Why did they put it there?"



Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

I didn't get to delve too deep in 4e, but one thing I'm coming to miss (kind of?) more and more are those different titled "class levels" at paragon and epic.

Thematically, I like the idea that a person who gets to a certain level of power gains some sort of respect or makes a deal or somehow earns a title and power beyond what he had before.

I like that, I like that if my players end up in the Fae and doing "good" they could end up as a Winter's Champion, or if some thing like that.

It didn't work mechanically though to fit that idea exactly (you gained when you leveled whenever that was) and it would be hard to do in 5e anyways (other than just giving people more power) but... I liked that what little of 4e I got to see had more Epic in the Epic fantasy.


I also like the idea of getting rules for levels 21-30 now that I think about it.


I loved the introduction of Primal power and spirits that have their own agendas and purposes seperate from the gods. I don't like that 5e is not exploring that area as much yet (though that seems to be changing)


I wish some of the monsters in 5e were closer to their literature roots (why goblins why) but one thing I prefer over 4e is 5e's monster lore. I like all the small little pieces that make these things interesting and terrifying. Hags eat babies to give birth to new hags. WTH is that all about, that is crazy and disturbing and AWESOME.

Stuff like that is great.




Honestly though, I really want to change some of the race assumptions of DnD. I haven't done it yet, because balance and lore would no longer meet up with mechanics, but I really prefer fantasy worlds where Elves are plants, dwarves are made of metal or stone, halflings are more interesting (sometimes they get smashed up with gnomes, other times they end up... odd), Dragons are essentially elemental beings, I even read one amazing story where they had vegan orcs, and it was wonderful. Really, the less Tolkien it is, the more interesting I tend to find it.

thanson02 said:

I completely agree. My wife has gotten to the point where when I get a new book, she ask, "Another one? What excuse do you have for this one?". Then I show her and she goes "Oh, that is where they put that. Why did they put it there?"



Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yeah but it wasn't even regulated to books... I believe if you wanted an actual map of Nerath the only place to get it/see it was in a D&D boardgame (can't remember the exact name of it right now)...

Imaro said:

Yeah but it wasn't even regulated to books... I believe if you wanted an actual map of Nerath the only place to get it/see it was in a D&D boardgame (can't remember the exact name of it right now)...

Click to expand...

Not to mention all the additional rule options in Unearthed Arcana articles. The Nerath character themes were introduced there.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

I dunno. To me, setting/fluff is like ice cream flavors. There are so many great choices of ice cream. I like many of them for different reasons. My preference in the moment will even vary based on my current mood, or even the flavor of the last ice cream I had. Heck, I may even be influenced by what my friends at the ice cream parlor are hyping up or showing interested in.

I like 5e more then 4e. Mechanically obviously, but fluff-wise, I didn't understand it that well.

That might have to do with the fact that I see the Great Wheel as an interconnected place for all settings of D&D in a single universe. I want my characters to move from one planet to another. The great wheel makes sense to me, but I only DMed 5th edition (decided I should have at least one physical complete RPG collection, might as well start with 5e).

Was reading the feywild and shadowfel, and I prefer the way they handled both in 5e and previous editions (Ravenloft a pocket dimension somewhere? My idea of a "Barovia" Prison inside Shadowfell is something that makes more sense then the "Dark Powers" over Ravenloft.

Altough, I would like some clarification on points of light and the World Axis comparatively with the Great Wheel and why its better. Tried reading the manual of planes in 4th edition, couldn't find much sense in it (the map of the universe seemed like a mess for me).

It took me a long time to determine my feelings on Nerath, but I think I finally found a way of putting them to words.

Nerath, taken on its own, is a pretty good setting. Its well thought out, has a kinda interesting mix of S&S and mythological epic, and does some unique things with the D&D lore. It takes risks tries new ideas. To me, its on par with a setting like Dragonlance or Eberron; an interesting take on the traditional D&D mythos.

The problem was, it tied to BE the D&D mythos.

Imagine that, in 6e, the default setting for D&D will be Eberron. The PHB has artificers, warforged, and changlings right next to humans and bards. Elves are described as necromantic ancestor worshippers, halflings as dinosaur riders. Dragonmarks and purchasable magic items are in the PHB, and the Great Wheel is replaced by the "Baker's Dozen" Orrery. Orcs are druidic, dragons alignment is unbound to color, and drow are patriarchal jungle dwellers obsessed with scorpions. All of this is presented in the 6e PHB, DMG, and MM as the "default" D&D take on them, and all future modules would be set in Eberron.

Furthermore, all other settings have to be either retro-fitted to accept Eberron's lore (such as warforged in the Realms or Drizzt being from Chult) or be strip-mined for its iconic lore (such as the Tomb of Horrors being in Xen'drik or Vecna being an ancient Daelkyr lord).

That's kinda what Nerath felt like in 4e.

Nerath as a setting is good. Nerath as the "default" setting of D&D was bad. Sadly, by the time 2008 had come around, D&D was firmly planted in the legacy of Greyhawk and the PS Multiverse. There were plenty of settings that changed or subverted that (Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Birthright), but I don't consider any of "default" D&D either. Part of Nerath's rejection was not that it opted to change the lore (plenty of settings have done that) but that it changed it and said "this the default now, and everything must change to accommodate it".

Remathilis said:

It took me a long time to determine my feelings on Nerath, but I think I finally found a way of putting them to words.

Nerath, taken on its own, is a pretty good setting. Its well thought out, has a kinda interesting mix of S&S and mythological epic, and does some unique things with the D&D lore. It takes risks tries new ideas. To me, its on par with a setting like Dragonlance or Eberron; an interesting take on the traditional D&D mythos.

The problem was, it tied to BE the D&D mythos.

Imagine that, in 6e, the default setting for D&D will be Eberron. The PHB has artificers, warforged, and changlings right next to humans and bards. Elves are described as necromantic ancestor worshippers, halflings as dinosaur riders. Dragonmarks and purchasable magic items are in the PHB, and the Great Wheel is replaced by the "Baker's Dozen" Orrery. Orcs are druidic, dragons alignment is unbound to color, and drow are patriarchal jungle dwellers obsessed with scorpions. All of this is presented in the 6e PHB, DMG, and MM as the "default" D&D take on them, and all future modules would be set in Eberron.

Furthermore, all other settings have to be either retro-fitted to accept Eberron's lore (such as warforged in the Realms or Drizzt being from Chult) or be strip-mined for its iconic lore (such as the Tomb of Horrors being in Xen'drik or Vecna being an ancient Daelkyr lord).

That's kinda what Nerath felt like in 4e.

Nerath as a setting is good. Nerath as the "default" setting of D&D was bad. Sadly, by the time 2008 had come around, D&D was firmly planted in the legacy of Greyhawk and the PS Multiverse. There were plenty of settings that changed or subverted that (Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Birthright), but I don't consider any of "default" D&D either. Part of Nerath's rejection was not that it opted to change the lore (plenty of settings have done that) but that it changed it and said "this the default now, and everything must change to accommodate it".

Click to expand...

Even I, an avid fan of Nerath, agree 100% with you. There was no need to throw everything out, especially when that "everything" has a lot of fans.
That's why I'm in favor of "setting-neutral" core books. They may have fluff descriptions of classes and such, but everything should be treated as tools in a toolbox, with the settings representing many ways you can use those tools (and leave others, if it's your choice).
To stubbornly insist on nominating one setting as "default" only further fractures the already shattered fan-base.

Igwilly said:

Even I, an avid fan of Nerath, agree 100% with you. There was no need to throw everything out, especially when that "everything" has a lot of fans.
That's why I'm in favor of "setting-neutral" core books. They may have fluff descriptions of classes and such, but everything should be treated as tools in a toolbox, with the settings representing many ways you can use those tools (and leave others, if it's your choice).
To stubbornly insist on nominating one setting as "default" only further fractures the already shattered fan-base.

Click to expand...

Arguably, this is what 2e did (the PH and DMG are very setting neutral, and the MM is a collection of lore from whatever setting that monster came from), 3e sorta did (Greyhawk is barely used a setting beyond the deities in the PH, much of the later stuff was tied to no setting), and 5e is kinda doing (with its Multiverse examples in the core books). It then falls to each setting to carve out the exceptions to the "generic" norm (Dragonlance doesn't use orcs; Eberron drow are different than the MM, Dark Sun might as well chuck 90% of all assumptions).