Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e players, why do you want 5e?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5922282" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>To see if it can be an actually good game in its own right. I have a lot of respect for 1e - it is a very good game about dungeon exploration. And 4e may be the main RPG I play, but certainly isn't the only one. 2e, 3e, and 3.5 are editions I have a <em>lot</em> less time for because they aren't IMO as good at what they claim to do. If 5e is the best game I've seen at something I want. If not I don't.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Let me stop you right there. I cut my RP teeth on Rolemaster, GURPS and WHFRP - and my third RPG ever was Call of Cthulu using GURPS rules. In my experience, D&D has <em>always</em> been playing on easy mode. You have hit points. You expect before very long to be able to shrug off a crossbow bolt. You have wizards you can trust with reliable spells. The danger generally stays in the dungeon. There aren't permanent or near-permanent debilitating injuries. And you actually seriously expect to slay dragons.</p><p></p><p>4e is, to me in the same difficulty class post first level D&D has <em>always</em> been in - the game itself being inherently lenient with larger than life PCs and any difficulty there is provided by the setting and the local opposition. If anything it's harder because the wizard is no longer walking round with a handful of "Get out of jail free" spells. 4e simply doesn't pretend to be anything it's not this way.</p><p></p><p>In D&D communion wine may well cure you 1d8 hit points. In WFRP it's more likely to give you the Galloping Trots.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You've clearly never played Rolemaster and seen what can be done to PCs with lucky dice rolls from the monsters. And 3.0 and 3.5 both took away a lot of resource management.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's actually a legacy of the very early <strong>3.0</strong> era. In the module [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Adventure/dp/0786916443"]The Forge of Fury[/ame] for 3rd level PCs there was an optional location with a [ame="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/roper.htm"]Roper[/ame] (CR 12). [ame="http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encounter-design"]According to The Alexandrian[/ame] there was a huge internet backlash against even putting the Roper in there and after the fan backlash, wizards didn't put such hostile monstes in their modules again. It seems a <em>little</em> harsh to blame 4e for a marketing decision created in the very early 3.0 days.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wrong on the first count, and a technicality on the second count. I'll deal with the second first.</p><p></p><p><em>Overnight healing</em> isn't, I believe, the intent of allowing overnight healing. What overnight healing does is <u>puts the hit points on the same recharge as magic users</u>. This is IMO a good thing. And I'm no more fond of overnight healing than you are - so when I DM I make the trivial houserule that an extended rest is a week at base camp. I can do that without anyone feeling hard done by - and it returns the game to a much older edition feel with returning to the city between adventures - without the clunky attempts such as wandering monsters to prevent wizards resting. That brings the resource management back in a way it hasn't been in D&D for a long time. But politically, I doubt that WoTC could have turned daily abilities into adventure abilities, however trivial it is at the table.</p><p></p><p>As for healing surges removing resource mangagement, you are IMO emphatically wrong on this one. It's simply that there are now two resource management tracks rather than one. </p><p></p><p>You're looking in the wrong place for the hit point track and strategic resource management - you should be looking at <strong>4e healing surges</strong>, not hit points. That's your <u>strategic</u> resource. And over long tough days it does get worn down - I remember a fight where we had to put the invoker and the warlock in the front lines (think putting the wizard and the rogue there) because our fighty-types were out of surges. And it's worth noting at this point that there is really very little magic that heals surges (or more accurately heals hit points without costing you surges for the privelige). If you treat your "hit points" as your healing surges +4 (to represent your full tactical hit points), this is still around.</p><p></p><p><strong>4e hit points</strong> are about <u>tactical</u> resource management. Healing in combat is a feature, not a bug - it gives you something to actively manage. But almost all intended combat healing <em>costs you healing surges</em>. Which means that it leaves your strategic situation effectively unchanged. You've still taken the damage to your healing surges.</p><p></p><p>Powers such as Cure Light Wounds (which allow someone to recover hit points as if they had spent a healing surge without actually spending one) first are rare and on a daily recharge cycle (meaning they recover with the surges) and secondly normally cost a standard action, meaning they have a very high opportunity cost in combat.</p><p></p><p>This is a world away from 3.X where you had the wand of Cure Light Wounds. After 3 years of 3.0 and a further 5 of 3.5 it was a return to the strategic resource management of older D&D while keeping the derring-do that the wands enabled. IMO the best of both worlds.</p><p></p><p>So to recap, we have a traditional long term healing resource management model in healing surges. We also have something that can be topped up each fight without getting in the way of this in hit points. And because the tactical resource is topped up you can have much more daring fights while keeping the strategic resource management running.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And the at wills wandered across to Pathfinder and into the 5e playtest for a good reason. </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>That it was. It's the significant change I'll agree with <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>People only half joke that 4e so loved Vancian cycles that it made all classes Vancian.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Certain designers <em>from Gygax and Arneson onwards</em>. Caster power creep has been a thing in literally every edition of D&D and Gygax put Weapon Specialisation into UA to try to bring the fighters up to balance. The 2e wizard gained a lot - specialisation gave him between 25% and 100% more spells, and the loss of the Illusionist meant that he got the best of the wizard and illusionist spell lists.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What ultimately this means IME is that DMs are a lot less gun-shy in 4e than earlier editions. And TPKs are actually probably more common.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That got hit by errata.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've never found asking people what they want to be a bad idea. And they get some of it. But what treasure parcels ultimately are is a note to adventure designers as to how much treasure you'd expect to put in to the adventure. For a beginning DM this is not bad advice.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Really? Because you broke it down to 20% of its value. And these days you can only craft common items.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Last time I remember giving out treasure in 4e I rolled on the loot table in the back of the 4e compendium. And my PCs ended up with a handful of jewels, a painting, and a statuette. Which wasn't what they wanted. This has sneaked back into D&D and it's one I'm happy to use.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree. What to me summarises 4e vs prior editions of D&D is: You can play who you want to.</p><p></p><p>I want to be a wizard who feels magical and doesn't run out of spells? I can. I want to be sneaky mcsneak the thief? I can. And I'm not overshadowed by the wizard using knock. I want to be Thorgar The Mighty, fighter, who no one dares turn their back on even with the wizard back there? As trivial as the wire-fu monk who was inspired by me falling asleep in front of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Hell, I want to play the damsel in distress or the party lucky charm who never appears to actually do anything but makes the party much stronger coming to my rescue? Lazy warlord.</p><p></p><p>All these are directly supported concepts and about equally strong. So I'm not feeling guilty about playing any of them rather than picking a cleric or wizard.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Indeed. If I want to play Appendix N rather than D&D, 4e kicks the arse even of the editions supposedly based on Appendix N. My "Grey Ratter" rogue can cast rituals. My gritty sergeants inspiring the men to greater deeds <em>do so</em>.</p><p></p><p>Also as DM, if I want to play a low magic campaign, I can simply ban all non-martial classes. And there's still plenty left including combat leaders - the party isn't going to feel as if there's a gaping void.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Pacifist Cleric is actually pretty popular. But no one is <em>forced</em> to be a cleric healbot. They can just choose to play one.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I like 4e. But it isn't the <em>only</em> game on my bookshelf. There's a rack of GURPS sourcebooks, Dread, Fiasco, two editions of WFRP, Spirit of the Century, Legends of Anglerre, Feng Shui, Wushu, Dr Who: Adventures in Time and Space, Leverage, and probably a few more I've forgotten.</p><p></p><p>What I want from 5e is a balanced game that offers zero to hero progression, fast combat (a failing of 4e which has taken the alternative of tactical combat), a streamlined and easy to use rules system, and is the best game there is at whatever it decides it wants to be.</p><p></p><p>And does part of my post explain what I see in 4e a bit better to you? I'll agree that a lot of what is in 4e isn't spelled out in the rulebook.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5922282, member: 87792"] To see if it can be an actually good game in its own right. I have a lot of respect for 1e - it is a very good game about dungeon exploration. And 4e may be the main RPG I play, but certainly isn't the only one. 2e, 3e, and 3.5 are editions I have a [I]lot[/I] less time for because they aren't IMO as good at what they claim to do. If 5e is the best game I've seen at something I want. If not I don't. Let me stop you right there. I cut my RP teeth on Rolemaster, GURPS and WHFRP - and my third RPG ever was Call of Cthulu using GURPS rules. In my experience, D&D has [I]always[/I] been playing on easy mode. You have hit points. You expect before very long to be able to shrug off a crossbow bolt. You have wizards you can trust with reliable spells. The danger generally stays in the dungeon. There aren't permanent or near-permanent debilitating injuries. And you actually seriously expect to slay dragons. 4e is, to me in the same difficulty class post first level D&D has [I]always[/I] been in - the game itself being inherently lenient with larger than life PCs and any difficulty there is provided by the setting and the local opposition. If anything it's harder because the wizard is no longer walking round with a handful of "Get out of jail free" spells. 4e simply doesn't pretend to be anything it's not this way. In D&D communion wine may well cure you 1d8 hit points. In WFRP it's more likely to give you the Galloping Trots. You've clearly never played Rolemaster and seen what can be done to PCs with lucky dice rolls from the monsters. And 3.0 and 3.5 both took away a lot of resource management. That's actually a legacy of the very early [B]3.0[/B] era. In the module [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Adventure/dp/0786916443"]The Forge of Fury[/ame] for 3rd level PCs there was an optional location with a [ame="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/roper.htm"]Roper[/ame] (CR 12). [ame="http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encounter-design"]According to The Alexandrian[/ame] there was a huge internet backlash against even putting the Roper in there and after the fan backlash, wizards didn't put such hostile monstes in their modules again. It seems a [I]little[/I] harsh to blame 4e for a marketing decision created in the very early 3.0 days. Wrong on the first count, and a technicality on the second count. I'll deal with the second first. [I]Overnight healing[/I] isn't, I believe, the intent of allowing overnight healing. What overnight healing does is [U]puts the hit points on the same recharge as magic users[/U]. This is IMO a good thing. And I'm no more fond of overnight healing than you are - so when I DM I make the trivial houserule that an extended rest is a week at base camp. I can do that without anyone feeling hard done by - and it returns the game to a much older edition feel with returning to the city between adventures - without the clunky attempts such as wandering monsters to prevent wizards resting. That brings the resource management back in a way it hasn't been in D&D for a long time. But politically, I doubt that WoTC could have turned daily abilities into adventure abilities, however trivial it is at the table. As for healing surges removing resource mangagement, you are IMO emphatically wrong on this one. It's simply that there are now two resource management tracks rather than one. You're looking in the wrong place for the hit point track and strategic resource management - you should be looking at [B]4e healing surges[/B], not hit points. That's your [U]strategic[/U] resource. And over long tough days it does get worn down - I remember a fight where we had to put the invoker and the warlock in the front lines (think putting the wizard and the rogue there) because our fighty-types were out of surges. And it's worth noting at this point that there is really very little magic that heals surges (or more accurately heals hit points without costing you surges for the privelige). If you treat your "hit points" as your healing surges +4 (to represent your full tactical hit points), this is still around. [B]4e hit points[/B] are about [U]tactical[/U] resource management. Healing in combat is a feature, not a bug - it gives you something to actively manage. But almost all intended combat healing [I]costs you healing surges[/I]. Which means that it leaves your strategic situation effectively unchanged. You've still taken the damage to your healing surges. Powers such as Cure Light Wounds (which allow someone to recover hit points as if they had spent a healing surge without actually spending one) first are rare and on a daily recharge cycle (meaning they recover with the surges) and secondly normally cost a standard action, meaning they have a very high opportunity cost in combat. This is a world away from 3.X where you had the wand of Cure Light Wounds. After 3 years of 3.0 and a further 5 of 3.5 it was a return to the strategic resource management of older D&D while keeping the derring-do that the wands enabled. IMO the best of both worlds. So to recap, we have a traditional long term healing resource management model in healing surges. We also have something that can be topped up each fight without getting in the way of this in hit points. And because the tactical resource is topped up you can have much more daring fights while keeping the strategic resource management running. And the at wills wandered across to Pathfinder and into the 5e playtest for a good reason. That it was. It's the significant change I'll agree with :) People only half joke that 4e so loved Vancian cycles that it made all classes Vancian. Certain designers [I]from Gygax and Arneson onwards[/I]. Caster power creep has been a thing in literally every edition of D&D and Gygax put Weapon Specialisation into UA to try to bring the fighters up to balance. The 2e wizard gained a lot - specialisation gave him between 25% and 100% more spells, and the loss of the Illusionist meant that he got the best of the wizard and illusionist spell lists. What ultimately this means IME is that DMs are a lot less gun-shy in 4e than earlier editions. And TPKs are actually probably more common. That got hit by errata. I've never found asking people what they want to be a bad idea. And they get some of it. But what treasure parcels ultimately are is a note to adventure designers as to how much treasure you'd expect to put in to the adventure. For a beginning DM this is not bad advice. Really? Because you broke it down to 20% of its value. And these days you can only craft common items. Last time I remember giving out treasure in 4e I rolled on the loot table in the back of the 4e compendium. And my PCs ended up with a handful of jewels, a painting, and a statuette. Which wasn't what they wanted. This has sneaked back into D&D and it's one I'm happy to use. I disagree. What to me summarises 4e vs prior editions of D&D is: You can play who you want to. I want to be a wizard who feels magical and doesn't run out of spells? I can. I want to be sneaky mcsneak the thief? I can. And I'm not overshadowed by the wizard using knock. I want to be Thorgar The Mighty, fighter, who no one dares turn their back on even with the wizard back there? As trivial as the wire-fu monk who was inspired by me falling asleep in front of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Hell, I want to play the damsel in distress or the party lucky charm who never appears to actually do anything but makes the party much stronger coming to my rescue? Lazy warlord. All these are directly supported concepts and about equally strong. So I'm not feeling guilty about playing any of them rather than picking a cleric or wizard. Indeed. If I want to play Appendix N rather than D&D, 4e kicks the arse even of the editions supposedly based on Appendix N. My "Grey Ratter" rogue can cast rituals. My gritty sergeants inspiring the men to greater deeds [I]do so[/I]. Also as DM, if I want to play a low magic campaign, I can simply ban all non-martial classes. And there's still plenty left including combat leaders - the party isn't going to feel as if there's a gaping void. The Pacifist Cleric is actually pretty popular. But no one is [I]forced[/I] to be a cleric healbot. They can just choose to play one. I like 4e. But it isn't the [I]only[/I] game on my bookshelf. There's a rack of GURPS sourcebooks, Dread, Fiasco, two editions of WFRP, Spirit of the Century, Legends of Anglerre, Feng Shui, Wushu, Dr Who: Adventures in Time and Space, Leverage, and probably a few more I've forgotten. What I want from 5e is a balanced game that offers zero to hero progression, fast combat (a failing of 4e which has taken the alternative of tactical combat), a streamlined and easy to use rules system, and is the best game there is at whatever it decides it wants to be. And does part of my post explain what I see in 4e a bit better to you? I'll agree that a lot of what is in 4e isn't spelled out in the rulebook. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e players, why do you want 5e?
Top