D&D 4E What Aspects of 4E Made It into 5E?

[Tony Vargas]

In 4E, to the best of my understanding,

The best of your understanding is woefully inadequate.

It's one of the minor-footnote tragedies of the hobby's history that the best understanding so many people were able to acquire of 4e was derived almost entirely from one side of the edition war.

 

[doctorhook]

The best of your understanding is woefully inadequate.

It's one of the minor-footnote tragedies of the hobby's history that the best understanding so many people were able to acquire of 4e was derived almost entirely from one side of the edition war.

True story. 4E had some great innovations to D&D, a good number which stealthed their way into 5E. (I regret that 5E left behind a few more.)

 

[Hussar]

It always shocks me just how much writing style matters. So much of 4e made it's way into 5e, but, because the writing style was so different, and the information presented differently, people just accepted it as "part of the D&D experience".

Heck, the two step short/long rest mechanic, which was so derided in 4e, appears in 5e with a small change (5 minutes to 1 hour) and no one bats an eye. To the point where I've seen people ardently defend the idea that the short/long rest mechanic is totally different and that it's a purely 5e thing with no relationship to 4e.

It really is eye opening to see just how much how the game is presented actually matters.

 

[Jester David]

True story. 4E had some great innovations to D&D, a good number which stealthed their way into 5E. (I regret that 5E left behind a few more.)

They didn’t really stealth in.
The vast, vast majority of gamers aren’t edition warriors. They don’t give a crap over the 3e/ 4e/ PF feud.
The good bits of 4e were kept. And, as shown by this thread, a lot of 4e stayed in.

4e initially sold more than 3e. It was a huge hit for six months. The opinions of a few people on the internet didn’t sink the game.

 

[Riley37]

The best of your understanding is woefully inadequate.

It's one of the minor-footnote tragedies of the hobby's history that the best understanding so many people were able to acquire of 4e was derived almost entirely from one side of the edition war.

I developed my understanding by playing a character in 4E. If there are ways to play an effective 4E character which don't require strategizing the optimal moment to use my once-per-encounter and daily abilities, via synergies with other abilities (mine and those of teammates), then 4E did a job of explaining those ways to me. Perhaps you can give me a better explanation than 4E did?

If the sides of the edition war are "those who tried it" and "those who didn't", then I'm on the former side. I then gave warnings, based on my at-the-table experience, to people on the latter side.

It's one of the minor-footnote tragedies of the hobby's history that WotC published 4E. Yes, there were some good elements, and I'm glad those elements are available in 5E. That said, I wish WotC had done enough playtesting, with a wide enough range of D&Ders (including those who aren't MtG enthusiasts), to discover how unpopular 4E would be.

The percentage of D&Ders who bought 4E, and a year later were still playing it and expressed high satisfaction with their purchase, compared to, say, spending the same money on pizza or a movie... well, I guess you consider that an adequate percentage, mainly because it includes you?

 

[pemerton]

It's one of the minor-footnote tragedies of the hobby's history that WotC published 4E.

I suspect this isn't true from WotC's point of view: they made plenty of money from it! (Enough to fund the development and production of 5e.)

It's also not true from my point of view: after not having played D&D regularly from early 1990 through 2008, I played 4e regularly from 2009 through 2016, and still have two active campaigns (but due to one player renovating a house, we haven't been quorate for 4e very often in the past 12 months).

The percentage of D&Ders who bought 4E, and a year later were still playing it and expressed high satisfaction with their purchase, compared to, say, spending the same money on pizza or a movie... well, I guess you consider that an adequate percentage, mainly because it includes you?

I've got not idea what that percentage was, but clearly it was sufficient to fund the development and hosting of DDI, as well as the production of 30+ hardbacks. So it seems to have been non-negligible.

But to be honest I do care primarily about my own purchases. We're not talking here about a medicine, or a malfunctioning piece of machinery. We're talking about a book whose content was widely previewed in advance of its publicattion, and widely reviewed immediately following publication. It wasn't a trap.

 

[CM]

Still call it bloodied. In fact we still usually use the terms "standard actions," "minor actions," and "healing surges" even though I think by now we've been playing 5th longer than 4th now. Several of the players still think standing up provokes OA and you can't use reactions on your turn.

It's funny how similar the games are (barring class design) yet it was and is hailed as revolutionary. Now they just need to make monsters a bit more interesting.

 

[Riley37]

I suspect this isn't true from WotC's point of view: they made plenty of money from it!

True. Almost as much as Paizo made from Pathfinder. Total sales of D&D products took second place in the company by company ranking, for the first time in the industry's brief existence.

By the standard of "did people buy it", Windows Vista was one of the great successes of information technology.

When we discuss what aspects of Windows Vista made it into the following Windows release, we don't necessarily have to revere Vista, and same with the question of this thread.

We're talking about a book whose content was widely previewed in advance of its publicattion, and widely reviewed immediately following publication. It wasn't a trap.

The difference between what the previews said, and what the reviews said, can best be summarized in the immortal words of Admiral Gial Akbar.

 

[Parmandur]

I think less so than in classic D&D because the constraints are more relaxed (the combo of cantrips, and Arcana Unearthed-style slot use).

That's not really my experience. I find that PC build in 4e is more like choosing to be a light cleric or an oath paladin or whatever - you are choosing some mechanical stuff that you think (i) will be fun, and (ii) will express your PC in the way that you want.

Playing the PC is a curious mix of gameplay optimisation (like playing a hand of bridge, or being one side in a fairly stylised wargame scenario) and playing the fiction (as in, say, Dungeon World). Other RPGs I know that draw on a somewhat similar skillset are Rolemaster and Burning Wheel. (Cf, for example, Runequest or Classic Traveller, which are fairly mechanically crunchy but don't have the same optimisation element.)

Here's a self-quote from 7 years ago:

​

I don't think my view has changed that much.

I think you get it about right in your self-quite, coming at it from a different playstyle. One of my great shicks from the 5E playtest results is that my college group was fairly normal, not as weird as I thought based on forum talk and WotC products in 3.5 and 4E.

 

[Hussar]

True. Almost as much as Paizo made from Pathfinder. Total sales of D&D products took second place in the company by company ranking, for the first time in the industry's brief existence.
/snip

Just a point, no horse in this race, but, no, that's not true. D&D fell behind Vampire the Masquerade for a couple of years back in the 90's.

But, yeah, let's be honest here, 4e was not a success by any real measure.