Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

Parmandur said:

It seems designed to keep things loose and casual as a whole. The XP system is pretty simple, too, DM assigns 1-3 points per scene played through.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

Click to expand...

Yeah, it sounds like its a pretty good spin on the old B/X style of crawl game. Honestly though, I'd probably look deeply into using a subset of 5e for that if I was going to run something like that. I mean why not stick with a decent system of AC and etc? Now, maybe 'basic 5e' doesn't quite cut it, I haven't really looked THAT carefully at what the game plays like when all the 'optional' stuff is removed.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Yeah, it sounds like its a pretty good spin on the old B/X style of crawl game. Honestly though, I'd probably look deeply into using a subset of 5e for that if I was going to run something like that. I mean why not stick with a decent system of AC and etc? Now, maybe 'basic 5e' doesn't quite cut it, I haven't really looked THAT carefully at what the game plays like when all the 'optional' stuff is removed.

Click to expand...

5E Basic has all the rules from the PHB, except for Feats, multiclassing and specific Classes/Races/Spells. The same game really, just a preview version.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

Parmandur said:

5E Basic has all the rules from the PHB, except for Feats, multiclassing and specific Classes/Races/Spells. The same game really, just a preview version.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

Click to expand...

Well, I guess what I mean is the most stripped down version of published 5e. I know they provided guidelines in the DMG for what would make a good 'OSR-like' experience (not sure exactly how it was presented, I've only skimmed a lot of the 5e DMG and it was a while back). I mean isn't there a defined subset that eschews HD, uses just the basic 'big 4' classes, doesn't include any of the fancier subclasses (particularly the half-casters), etc? That also lacks skills, the proficiency system, MCing, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting.

I would think that would produce a FAIRLY reasonable emulation of B/X, but with modern AC and such things. I guess character's hit points would be a bit higher, but damage output would mostly make up for that, wouldn't it? I mean things would be slightly less deadly at a level of literal translation of elements from say "Caves of Chaos" to that version of 5e, but you'd just tweak things slightly if you wanted it to be equally arbitrarily brutal.

I mean, there's nothing terrible about the core rules of B/X, but they ARE a little antiquated, with descending AC, attack matrices, and the oddly arbitrary saving throw categories (as examples). It would certainly be easier to teach to 3.x and 4e people (and 5e people) than teaching them a new and somewhat quirky engine.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Well, I guess what I mean is the most stripped down version of published 5e. I know they provided guidelines in the DMG for what would make a good 'OSR-like' experience (not sure exactly how it was presented, I've only skimmed a lot of the 5e DMG and it was a while back). I mean isn't there a defined subset that eschews HD, uses just the basic 'big 4' classes, doesn't include any of the fancier subclasses (particularly the half-casters), etc? That also lacks skills, the proficiency system, MCing, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting.

I would think that would produce a FAIRLY reasonable emulation of B/X, but with modern AC and such things. I guess character's hit points would be a bit higher, but damage output would mostly make up for that, wouldn't it? I mean things would be slightly less deadly at a level of literal translation of elements from say "Caves of Chaos" to that version of 5e, but you'd just tweak things slightly if you wanted it to be equally arbitrarily brutal.

I mean, there's nothing terrible about the core rules of B/X, but they ARE a little antiquated, with descending AC, attack matrices, and the oddly arbitrary saving throw categories (as examples). It would certainly be easier to teach to 3.x and 4e people (and 5e people) than teaching them a new and somewhat quirky engine.

Click to expand...

Nope, no defined subset like that. There are multiple alternative proficiency systems (dice pooling, attribute as skill, pure narrative justification, etc.), and alternative healing systems, etc. The Basic rules just have Champion, Third, Life Cleric and Evoker as Class options.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

AbdulAlhazred said:

Yeah, it sounds like its a pretty good spin on the old B/X style of crawl game. Honestly though, I'd probably look deeply into using a subset of 5e for that if I was going to run something like that. I mean why not stick with a decent system of AC and etc? Now, maybe 'basic 5e' doesn't quite cut it, I haven't really looked THAT carefully at what the game plays like when all the 'optional' stuff is removed.

Click to expand...

The problem with capping 5e at 10th is that the levels 1-3 go by so fast, you don't really get started until 4th. So you end up with only 7 levels of substantial play. Slowing down 1-4 advancement would help a bit, but levels 1 & 2 are presented as the 'training levels' where you don't have your full class abilities yet.
I think 4e is much more suitable for 1-10 play; it has slower 1-3 advancement and more
competent low-level PCs.

S'mon said:

The problem with capping 5e at 10th is that the levels 1-3 go by so fast, you don't really get started until 4th. So you end up with only 7 levels of substantial play. Slowing down 1-4 advancement would help a bit, but levels 1 & 2 are presented as the 'training levels' where you don't have your full class abilities yet.
I think 4e is much more suitable for 1-10 play; it has slower 1-3 advancement and more
competent low-level PCs.

Click to expand...

I hadn't really thought about 1-10 play. I don't know that 'OSR-like' play REQUIRES only low-level PCs. I'd say OSR is pretty amenable to higher level characters. Certainly BECMI envisages 36 levels of play and its often cited as a model system for that style.

Now, maybe high level 5e just can't get the same feel? I really don't know. I'd think if you were playing a stripped-down sort of game that it would seem pretty similar even in the level 11-20 range.

AbdulAlhazred said:

I hadn't really thought about 1-10 play. I don't know that 'OSR-like' play REQUIRES only low-level PCs. I'd say OSR is pretty amenable to higher level characters. Certainly BECMI envisages 36 levels of play and its often cited as a model system for that style.

Click to expand...

OSRIC the first clone started off 10-12 years ago focused on high level modules, but since then OSR has been strongly associated with low level gritty play, esp in megadungeons I think. My own BECM campaign is now up around 17th level and there is no OSR material I know of that really supports this level of play.

Campbell said:

4e does not get off the hook here though. More effort could have been made to ensure the text was evocative while maintaining its ease of use.

Click to expand...

Two things:

1) This is doubly so when you consider the evocative nature of Worlds and Monsters, Neverwinter, Dark Sun, Heroes of the Feywild, the Primal Powers books (so underrated - the Primal Power Source and the Feywild are probably my favorite backstory components), DMG2, and several components of the Monster Manuals (I actually liked them and found them extremely useful in provoking me to use them thematically as well as tactically).

2) More effort also should have made to clarify GMing principles in DMG1. They did a fantastic job with DMG2, online articles, Dungeon Mag, and RC. However, the thing the got the most (negative) press from DMG1 was "skip the gate guards and get to the fun!" How hard would it have been (and they did in other ways in that book and made it much more explicit later) to just say "always go to the action" or "at every moment, drive play toward conflict."

AbdulAlhazred said:

4e fights HAVE a cadence, 3.x fights are pretty much decided by how the dice fall, or by how much the PCs have tricked themselves out for the particular situation (and perhaps some combination of those things).

Click to expand...

3.x had four "cadences" to combat (if you want to call them that). Front-loaded PCs and NPCs, encounter ending/deciding spells, ubiquitous buff stacking, summons/companions that had their own action economy.

1) Ambush Gank and/or Rocket Tag Nova.
2) Mop-up post encounter-devastating SoS spell.
3) OMG Dispel Magic (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!) warfare on several combatants that spent 1/2 an hour adjusting stats for buffs (and now will spend considerable time adjusting back).
4) The Summons/Companion "hey everyone else, take 5 (errr 10)".

Obviously 4e really had a singular cadence with subtle accents that gave each combat a unique flavor; the Rally narrative (front-loaded monsters + deep-resourced PCs) married to Swashbuckling/X-Men/Wire-Fu tropes. But consider how much of 4e's outcome based design for its basic combat engine was dedicated to addressing the above 1-4. And they did. If you liked any/all of 1-4 you probably didn't like 4e combat.

cavalier973 said:

[video=youtube;QoELQ7px9ws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoELQ7px9ws[/video]

This is a video of Matt Colville discussing how to "steal" elements of 4e to use in one's 5e game (mostly relating to combat, natch). In the latter half of the video, he discusses the history of 4e and his thoughts on the rules.

Some of what he says relates to my original point.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I missed this post in this thread earlier (I was heavily skimming due to lack of time). Interestingly, I had a conversation awhile ago in another thread about this exact same thing. This video mirrors my points almost exactly. The conversation continued in that thread with some participants saying:

1) 4e's dragons had too much mental overhead and table handling time

coupled with

2) Their distinct abilities (which were the origin of the alleged exacerbation of mental overhead and table handling time) not actually engendering...distinctiveness!

Adding an Inferno and Immolate analogue to 5e wouldn't render the Ancient Red more distinctive from the Ancient Blue...and it would just be too much cognitive workload? Errr? The conversation continued from there as I found that (and still do...not just because its empirically false but because its even theoretically hard to fathom someone taking a position). Read it at your discretion (I bailed after a few head-scratching responses).

What I find most fascinating about that exchange (and similar exchanges) is the utterly untenable position that 5e dragons are distinct while at the same time being on the "4e PC homogeneity" train. 5e dragons on the wing are NEARLY EXACTLY THE SAME AS EACH OTHER (LR 3/day, Multiattack, Bite, Claw, Tail, Breath Weapon, LAs of Detect/Tail/Wing) save for minor base stat fluctuation and the distinction of their elemental shtick (breath weapon type and immunity). A few of them have Burrow. *

But 4e PCs are homogeneous and lacking mechanical and archetypal distinction? Given that 4e PCs are PROFOUNDLY distinctive in play, right out of the box (from both a tactical depth perspective and the way their thematics manifest in the fiction in combat, SCs, and Quests), that is a nightmare of a position to try to intellectually defend. I'm so glad I don't have to try to maintain those two positions simultaneously.


* Now their Lair Actions are where the distinction and interesting nuance (tactical depth, archetype coming out in the fiction) manifests with 5e dragons. But managing Lair Actions somehow doesn't increase mental overhead to the point that the cognitive workload becomes too burdensome? But simply adding unique Legendary Actions or a Passive Aura would?

Manbearcat said:

But 4e PCs are homogeneous and lacking mechanical and archetypal distinction? Given that 4e PCs are PROFOUNDLY distinctive in play, right out of the box (from both a tactical depth perspective and the way their thematics manifest in the fiction in combat, SCs, and Quests), that is a nightmare of a position to try to intellectually defend. I'm so glad I don't have to try to maintain those two positions simultaneously.


* Now their Lair Actions are where the distinction and interesting nuance (tactical depth, archetype coming out in the fiction) manifests with 5e dragons. But managing Lair Actions somehow doesn't increase mental overhead to the point that the cognitive workload becomes too burdensome? But simply adding unique Legendary Actions or a Passive Aura would?

Click to expand...

The Term cognitive dissonance comes to mind... usually associated with religion