4th to 5th Edition Converters - What has been your experience?

[Tony Vargas]

Mmmmm, yeah, that is a point. Its like 4e minions can be trivial or a real menace, but if you translate weak monsters into 5e they always come down on the 'menace' side of the coin.

Quite apart from how you translate them (I'd just pull the closest thing from the 5e MM, there's little point to 'designing' or 'converting' monsters), just sheer numbers count for so much under Bounded Accuracy. If there's 20 monsters, it's going to be a problem, it doesn't much matter what they are. Either an AE can automatically wipe them all out, or they're going to add up to some pain.

While its true that high level 5e monsters work OK as a sort of 'solo' in some respects things get pretty skewed with the weaker ones, particularly for low level PCs. I really think that KotS would be best approached as being a level 3 adventure in 5e.

That'd help tremendously.

I'm not sure what you do about things like the kobold lair. I guess the only really viable answer is that the players have to be given some sort of tool that short-circuit the whole fight.

If it were a 5e adventure, it'd simply have fewer kobolds at the waterfall, fewer just within, and more and more detailed warrens that conveniently cut the kobolds up into manageable pieces, both in terms of the stystem and the party's capabilities.

Something that will scare away most of the kobolds, or fool them into leaving the area, or allowing you to sneak past, etc. Amusingly the 4e version of the module would have been better if an SC had been provided to allow for that sort of thing as well, so its not like really a totally 5e issue, just that 5e has a unique way of manifesting it.

SCs were definitely under-utilized in the early 4e modules, yes.

Of course, KotSf was horrible, even in 4e. Twisting Halls, OTOH, was OK, even with Essentials characters, and just as big a disaster as KotSf run in 5e. 5e's just not up to the range of challenges and degrees of challenge you could do with 4e. Price of 'fast combat' and bounded accuracy and classic feel.

Quite so - I should feel excited about this (as either a player or a GM) why, exactly?

As a DM: Because you got tired of player 'builds' incorporating magic items, because it's nostalgic, because it gives you unlimited license to just make up magic items, because you can use that to adjust the balance among players and move that spotlight around by placing just the right item, because you can use the lure of items as plot hooks, because it gives you more 'control' over the implied setting/world...

As a Player: you..er... um...like being surprised? Have no other outlets for latent masochistic tendencies? IDK, I'm not much drawn to 5e as a player. 3.5 & 4e are much more appealing to me from that side of the screen.

 

[Balesir]

As a DM: Because you got tired of player 'builds' incorporating magic items, because it's nostalgic, because it gives you unlimited license to just make up magic items, because you can use that to adjust the balance among players and move that spotlight around by placing just the right item, because you can use the lure of items as plot hooks, because it gives you more 'control' over the implied setting/world...

*Shrug* I guess I'm just not the target audience - I'm still not getting it. 4e magic items were a party build tool - the only one - and as such had a unique role in the game. And party balancing??? As GM, why in blue blazes would I want to have any part in that?

 

[Tony Vargas]

*Shrug* I guess I'm just not the target audience -

Did you ever love D&D? You're the target audience.
Stop dodging, let WotC draw a bead on you, already.

I'm still not getting it. 4e magic items were a party build tool - the only one - and as such had a unique role in the game.

OK, now I don't get it. Do you mean item sets? I seem to remember items being used in optimized character builds.

And party balancing??? As GM, why in blue blazes would I want to have any part in that?

You can tune it to whatever your campaign demands. For instance, if you wanted to go outside the box and have a Hero/sidekicks kind of dynamic in the party, you could make it happen. Or you can establish balance in spite of, say, differing levels of system mastery.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK, now I don't get it. Do you mean item sets? I seem to remember items being used in optimized character builds.

I think he means that, because items are relatively free to be allocated around to different characters largely regardless of class and power source, they provide the players with a way to "build a party", but if the players are willing to decide on their choices of build options, they can do that anyway, so I'm not really sure what makes items exclusive to this role.

You can tune it to whatever your campaign demands. For instance, if you wanted to go outside the box and have a Hero/sidekicks kind of dynamic in the party, you could make it happen. Or you can establish balance in spite of, say, differing levels of system mastery.

I can't do that in 4e? Sure I can. A level 5 hero with 4 level 3 'sidekicks' for example would work pretty well (the exact level difference might be a little tricky, and you'll have to fudge XP somehow to maintain it, but you can do it). It could be achieved with gear too, just give out higher level gear to the 'main character'. Artifacts would certainly spring to mind here as a way to do it. 4e makes it VERY easy to correct for system mastery. Because the system is SO transparent you can quite accurately gauge what will be required to balance character A with B (IE A has a 2 point lower attack bonus and a 4.25 point lower single target melee DPH, pretty easy to correct).

 

[Balesir]

Did you ever love D&D? You're the target audience.
Stop dodging, let WotC draw a bead on you, already.

I think they missed

OK, now I don't get it. Do you mean item sets? I seem to remember items being used in optimized character builds.

I think he means that, because items are relatively free to be allocated around to different characters largely regardless of class and power source, they provide the players with a way to "build a party", but if the players are willing to decide on their choices of build options, they can do that anyway, so I'm not really sure what makes items exclusive to this role.

Getting warmer, but no cigar, I'm afraid

This aspect mostly comes about because, while we tend often to think of it in static terms, character "building" or "optimisation" is, in real play (as we play it, at least), a dynamic thing - it has the dimension of time (measured, in 4E, in levels). The point about player-side magic items - and I'm considering making this even more marked in my next 4E campaign - is that they form a pooled resource that can be leveraged to get better timing of team-based advantages.

In 4E there is always some treasure as "cash", and there is the mooted "wish list" option as well, but increasingly I have parsed treasure as residuum in place of some of the magic item "parcels". On top of this, by Paragon levels the characters will likely have items they wish to "residuumise", adding to the pot for further self-enchanted items. For future games I am considering splitting residuum and "cash" and making residuum hard to get, non-creatable and completely salvagable when an item is disenchanted, making residuum a real "party pool" of "magic itemness" that can be used as a resource.

So, what does this "look like" in play? The item sets and so on are obviously one case, but another, in our game, has been concerned with "build phasing". By the nature of the way magic items are gained, not everyone has the "latest thing" in "big three" items, let alone other bits and pieces. So a conversation between players might go something like this, as a level-up is done:

Player 1: Well, I could get feat A, which would be sweet for synergy with the defenders and adds to our XXX tactic nicely, but I'm really feeling the lack of AC, so I'll probably just go for the AC boost feat.

Player 2: Actually, as a party we have residuum/cash/components for an upgrade to your armour - how about we give you an AC boost that way, and you take the A feat for the nice tactical boost?

Player 1: Oh, yeah, that would work for me!

Player 3: Hmm, I was hoping for an armour next, but I guess there's always next time - and the tactical bonus would be nice.

Player 1: Yeah - I could take the AC feat in another couple of levels, and in the meantime the armour developments could go to you after I get this one.

In this way, the development of the party capability over time can be leveraged and guided by the party as a whole, rather than developing static "builds" as individual characters. Much as I like the CharOp stuff developed for 4E (and admire the effort put into it), I find that, in practice, PC builds tend to develop somewhat organically over the campaign, and react to the in-game situation as much as to some sort of abstracted "optimum". In this context, the magic items play a useful part in letting the players balance and optimise the party as a whole for the situation they find themselves in.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess that is pretty nearly unique in that it is a resource that can be re-shuffled between levels. Characters can, indeed, swap redistribute or make/buy items to fine-tune party synergies. Aside from a few specific tricks like Wizards prepping spells or feats that let other classes to swap in and alternate power, I guess that is about it, too. Interesting point. Of course, in 5e (and other eds) prepping spells is much more prevalent, both in terms of the number of classes that can do it, and in the number of spells they prep and flexibility they have in doing so.

 

[S'mon]

Instead of focusing on the whole dungeon as a giant puzzle you focus on "the story of what happens when you explore" in which you pretty much skip past the dull boring endless tramping around testing doors and hallways for traps, and get on to the "oh, gosh, we just fell down a chute and now we're lost!" part.

One thing I like about running Paizo APs in 5e is that the Exploration of their mostly very detailed environments is one of the most fun parts of the game - and 5e unlike PF works very well with exploration focused style I find. Not everyone finds exploration boring!

Yes, 4e does indeed work best with Skip To the Encounter!! style play, doesn't mean other styles don't work great in other systems. I love the procedural dungeoncrawl play meets Palaces & Princesses in my Mentzer Classic game, too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One thing I like about running Paizo APs in 5e is that the Exploration of their mostly very detailed environments is one of the most fun parts of the game - and 5e unlike PF works very well with exploration focused style I find. Not everyone finds exploration boring!

Yes, 4e does indeed work best with Skip To the Encounter!! style play, doesn't mean other styles don't work great in other systems. I love the procedural dungeoncrawl play meets Palaces & Princesses in my Mentzer Classic game, too.

I don't see how PF doesn't work with exploration. It has numerous skills and other mechanics that can be of use in that pillar (or in interaction, for that matter). The same went for 4e, it had skills, rituals, and other mechanics that could be used to resolve action in the other two pillars. That 4e skill challenges could also have been used to speed through tedious examples doesn't diminish that. SCs also had the potential to keep everyone participating in an exploration challenges, which, almost as much as interaction challenges, can have a tendency to become single-player activities when run freeform/'RPd through' or handled with just one skill.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One thing I like about running Paizo APs in 5e is that the Exploration of their mostly very detailed environments is one of the most fun parts of the game - and 5e unlike PF works very well with exploration focused style I find. Not everyone finds exploration boring!

Yes, 4e does indeed work best with Skip To the Encounter!! style play, doesn't mean other styles don't work great in other systems. I love the procedural dungeoncrawl play meets Palaces & Princesses in my Mentzer Classic game, too.

Yeah, I don't actually hate it either. I just get to where what I want to explore is more "the big picture" and less the next hallway, but dungeon crawling certainly can be amusing and fun.

I think 4e gives you enough tools that what you 'skip to' can be a lot of different stuff too. I just think that in general you can get past a lot of 'noise' really well in 4e. Mentzer, for instance, just has no other way to handle it except you plod through each room and corridor. You can 'fudge it' and that can be fine at times, just not as natural and easy as in 4e.

 

[Quickleaf]

I have decided to do my own 4.5 Edition combining what I liked in 4th Edition and incorporating the changes I liked in 5th Edition.
However, I would be very interested in hearing from those of you that fully embraced 4th Edition - played it, liked it, but have now moved on and are running 5th Edition Campaigns. What has been your experience? What do you miss from 4th Edition, and what do you like, or feel has been improved in 5th Edition?

/Myrhdraak

That pretty much describes me to a T I ran two 4e campaigns, ranging from 1st-10th level, and 8th-13th level. Mostly I DMed, but I did have the opportunity to play in some shorter pickup games run by my friends, which was great fun. Now I've been running 5e intermittently, and though life has interfered with face-to-face games, I still play via Roll20 and play-by-post.

I miss three things from 4e:

• Dynamic combat with lots of movement as the default, not something the DM had to go to extra lengths to achieve.
• Skill challenges (at the later end of 4e when that part of the game was finally more dialed in)
• Epic Destinies & Paragon Paths. While many paragon paths ended up being power boosts, there was a lot of cool grist for the narrative mill in the PPs and EDs, definitely stuff to inspire adventure hooks and often some diamonds in the rough when it came to cool powers.

I enjoy these three things that I feel 5e improved upon:

• Return to emphasizing exploration and interaction, as reflected in class design, a little bit in monster design, and overall in how the books are written. I disliked the hyper-combat focused design of 4e classes/powers.
• Concentration. I think this simple mechanic is a vast improvement over 3e/2e/1e and a modest improvement over 4e. Efficient, regulating spellcaster abuse of power, and simple to remember.
• Personality traits, bonds, ideals, and flaws (and backgrounds) as cornerstones of character creation. Much better way to bring new players into the roleplaying part of the game imho.

Oddly, things that I was initially concerned about with 5e have become less of a concern after playing with them. For example, initially I was concerned about 5e's "swingy" combat encounters, but now that I have a better feel for how all the secondary parameters of a fight (e.g. how fresh PCs are, cover, surprise, monster tactics, PC tactics) influence its difficulty. Once you figure out how to account for that (and it should be more clearly stated in the DMG), then it's not too different from 4e. Maybe a touch more lethal, but I'm good with that.

Overall, I feel that a lot of the lessons of 4e were incorporated into 5e: elegant monster stat blocks, tempered caster power, martial maneuvers, improv guidelines, etc.

Lastly, there is one thing I feel BOTH 4e & 5e are missing (actually all D&D is missing), but it's felt more keenly in 5e because bounded accuracy seems to make failed checks a bit more common. And what's missing is making failure interesting (not necessarily EVERY failure, but at least SOME failure). True, an experienced GM can do this, but I think the rules should support an answer better than "Yeah, a 5 misses, your longsword swing goes wide. Who's next?" D&D tends to be very binary when it comes to success/failure.