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

[S'mon]

Really? That is interesting...

It may well be possible to charop a 4e Defender who is immune to minions. I've not seen
it myself (and minions IMC have a Damage Threshold). Lots of later minions do tons of damage when they 'pop' anyway, though, such that in most cases I'd not expect a 4e Fighter to be able to handle more than 20-30. In older editions I vaguely recall calculating the high level Fighter could handle ca 140 mooks, more with positioning, obviously a lot more if they get 1 att/level vs 0 level foes - no 0 level foes should go anywhere near a 1e Fighter.
From what I've seen, a high level 5e Fighter is likely to be somewhere in between. High level 5e
casters also have a somewhat reduced capacity to kill hundreds so the balance seems about the same.
5e is a lot like 3e in that it's easy for caster to disable target with save-or-suck effects, though.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's testimonials of the dwarf PC in his own game is pretty similar (but I don't believe that PC has Dread Reaper PP...I think he is Cleric PP?).

The dwarf fighter is multi-class cleric and has the warpriest paragon path (from the PHB, with the Essentials errata that was released in the form of the Class Compendium).

I think all his encounter powers are close bursts. His dailies are mostly single-target free attacks triggered by crits and the like (for really sinking the boot in).

Contra [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], he is absolutely a controller - and as I posted in last year's (? or thereabouts) "What are the roles now?" thread, it seems to me that the difference between defender and controller is not really a functional one but more a legacy one, between "does it in melee and so is capable of taking damage" (= the AD&D fighter) and "does it at range and is a bit of a glass cannon" (= the AD&D wizard).

He is not bad against minions - eg they are highly vulnerable to CaGI/Warriors' Urging - but his real specialty is swarms, because he can take the auto damage while dishing out enhanced AoE damage. So if mooks are statted up as swarms (which I often prefer to minions - I've used hobgoblin phalanxes, swarms of demons both land-based and flying, zombie hordes, etc) then in the fiction he may be cutting down dozens or hundreds of them.

It may well be possible to charop a 4e Defender who is immune to minions. I've not seen
it myself (and minions IMC have a Damage Threshold). Lots of later minions do tons of damage when they 'pop' anyway, though, such that in most cases I'd not expect a 4e Fighter to be able to handle more than 20-30.

The just-mentioned fighter took down twenty-odd minions plus an elite in an arena duel against githzerai monks. The githzerai had some ranged abilities, which made the positioning and movement requirements tricky for the fighter (I think in 3E he would have been cactus, because of the "no full attack if you move" rule). From memory, he had about 4 surges left at the start of the combat and used them all. It came down to sudden death between him and the elite - whoever hit would drop the other. The PC got the first good roll.

Normally I find minions can be a bit boring, and I don't generally use them in very large numbers except as complementing the "real" enemies. For mooks I tend to prefer swarms where that makes sense, as they are mechanically interesting and only require me to manage one set of hp, actions etc. But sometimes minions make sense (eg when I ran my mid-epic conversion of G2 I used quite a few frost giant minions to round out my roster of dozens of giants).

What this does mean, though, is that I haven't really tried the "wave" experiment in 4e to see how it would go.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Contra [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] It seems to me that the difference between defender and controller is not really a functional one but more a legacy one, between "does it in melee and so is capable of taking damage" (= the AD&D fighter) and "does it at range and is a bit of a glass cannon" (= the AD&D wizard).

I've heard that logic before, but never found it convincing.

The Defender role in 4e was clearly-defined and played a definite, contributing, role in the party. Defender features helped allies significantly. A defender by himself had features that essentially did nothing. Marking, most obviously. The same was true of the Leader Role. The Leader had clear contributions to make that flowed to the rest of the party, by himself, the leader had features that did nothing (many an allies-only buff, most obviously).

The Controller role was mostly just a tenuous excuse for grandfathering in more versatile and powerful spells for the Wizard. The Controller also had no one straightforward function. He imposed conditions. He created zones. He blew up minions and interdicted areas with the mere threat of his powers.

The Controller directly degraded the enemy's effectiveness, a result similar to what the Defender accomplished indirectly, but where the Defender did so by putting himself in harm's way, the Controller did so while simultaneously keeping himself out of trouble. Those zones and conditions and conjurations all served to keep enemies away from him, to make him a difficult target to engage.
And, perhaps, most notably, the Controller on his own lost nothing. All his features, all his powers, still worked, very well indeed. In fact, without a party to get in the way of his target:all-creatures AEs or queer his condition-imposition tactics (charging immobilized enemies, for instance), he was /more/ effective. The controller was the ultimate 'selfish' role - no wonder it was also the most dispensable.

Nor does melee vs ranged draw the line. In 3e you could create a 'battlefield control' build that was melee (with reach, but still melee, thankyouverymuch), that swept away swaths of lesser foes, interdicted an area, imposed conditions (mostly prone, but it was a nastier condition in 3e), and did it all while making himself a difficult target to engage - while doing nothing much to defend allies, especially melee allies who were just going to run up to enemies he'd tripped, anyway. Melee Controller, not Defender.

Normally I find minions can be a bit boring, and I don't generally use them in very large numbers except as complementing the "real" enemies. For mooks I tend to prefer swarms where that makes sense, as they are mechanically interesting and only require me to manage one set of hp, actions etc.

Heartily agree! Minions are great for what they do, which is the same thing Bounded Accuracy does with modest numbers of lower-level monsters in 5e - have a number of contemptible foes for the heroes to blow through and display their awesome, while still posing a minor threat - but when you cross the line into hordes (dozens, hundreds) of such foes, Swarms work /sooo/ much better.

What this does mean, though, is that I haven't really tried the "wave" experiment in 4e to see how it would go.

I've certainly done some 'wave' combats, they allow you to use a larger total number of enemies without overwhelming the party, and to reduce the impact of certain player tactics. They strike me as a good idea in 5e, too, since numbers tell so heavily, breaking them up is even more critical.

 

[pemerton]

The Defender role in 4e was clearly-defined and played a definite, contributing, role in the party. Defender features helped allies significantly. A defender by himself had features that essentially did nothing. Marking, most obviously.

When I describe this character as a controller, I'm not referring primarily to marking. I'm referring primarily to his ability to stop enemy movement, immobilise, knock prone and generally control positioning.

But even marking is a control feature once there is more than one PC - which, in my 4e experience, there almost always is. Because it constrains the action declarations of the enemy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When I describe this character as a ...

I was responding primarily to your general characterization of the Defender and Controller roles as differing only in tough/melee vs ranged/glass.

But even marking is a control feature once there is more than one PC - which, in my 4e experience, there almost always is. Because it constrains the action declarations of the enemy.

I know the expectation is decent-sized parties, but I've run for enough very small parties or isolated PCs to notice how the roles start to behave outside that assumption. I think the way the controller, if anything, gets more effective on his own is noteworthy, while other roles miss out (defenders and leaders outright lose effectiveness when alone, a striker on his own misses the support of a party - but a controller is just freed from bozos messing up his schemes.) ;P

When you consider the possibility of a lone PC taking on a 'typical' adventure with an appropriate (1/5th) exp budget, he'd be facing a lot of minions and groups of under-leveled enemies - or a lone level-appropriate standard. A controller's AEs make him effective vs minions and under-leveled groups, and lockdown is devastating vs lone enemies.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Talk me through this. I don't have my books at my fingertips, so this is just some back of my brain envelope stuff I'm throwing out there.

Let's say 12th level. Orcs are 2 HD (15 HP, 13 AC, +5 hit, d12+3 damage) so at that level they should be in the canon fodder realm. Group of 3 PCs (Champion Fighter, Totem Barbarian and some support class...Cleric or Bard) trying to hold off a horde of them at the city gates (lets say 20 ft "choke point").

Human Champion Fighter:

107ish HPs
GWM and HWM feats (so cleave rider and -3 damage incoming per attack)
Tunnel Stalker for the melee control/OAs
18-19 AC (depending on magic items)

Human Totem Barbarian:

120ish HPs
GWM (so cleave rider and -3 damage incoming per attack) and Sentinel feats
Wolf Totem so allies have ADV on attacks against enemies w/in 5 of you
maybe 15 AC? (depending on magic items)

Obviously Rage, Action Surge, Second Wind, etc. No Cleave and no Mark module. No NPC archers on the ramparts. Just the PCs. Orcs have Aggressive (30 ft move bonus action toward Hostile), so lets assume an encounter distance of 60 ft. Constant steam of orcs. 4 emerging every round from whatever (cave, forest, trench, some obscuring or blocking terrain) and rushing the PCs. Let's call that a wave.

How many (very ballparkish) waves until the PCs falter, do you guys think? Yes I know there are several variables and this can't be answered with absolute precision. Just give me a "I'm a pro D&D vet and x waves sounds in the ballpark" answer.

Melee control, multi-attack/cleave, likely lots of off-turn attacks, -3/halve damage per attack, stout HPs, ADV on most attacks, plenty of single target damage. The major area of danger I see is the Bounded Accuracy one. Even with their respective damage reduction, the PCs will be getting hit a LOT.

Compare that to canon fodder to hit vs AC in AD&D and 3.x. Those ridiculously in favor of the PCs (and 3.x was the most bloody awful iteration of the Fighter there could have been from STs, to default melee control, to the basic action economy working against their fundamental attack mode, etc)

Hit ratio against Defenders in 4e is pretty similar to the hit ratio against a Fighter in 5e. Minion damage to HP ratio is actually pretty similar (vicinity of 10%ish per hit). That is pretty much where the comparison ends.

Spitball, the orcs hit 25% of the time, and they do average 6.5 damage after the -3 DR, so each of the fighters will take 1 hit every other round (1 of the 4 orcs will hit one of them). That gives the fighter about 20 rounds, the barb a tiny more, plus whatever healing they can get. They'll definitely hold off on the order of low 100's of orcs. (I am just assuming no orc ever survives a round in combat here, which I think is a fairly safe assumption, though probably a tiny bit optimistic).

NOW, lets spitball a 1e AD&D fighter, level 10, 65 hit points, AC -4, damage is probably irrelevant (will slag an orc per attack automatically) Its getting 2 attacks/round per fighter, so things are about the same there, but the orcs only hit on a 20, which is a BIG difference. On average each fighter will take 15 hits to kill, roughly, and at 4 attacks per round, that will take 150 rounds. So your AD&D fighters can hold off 600 basic orcs. They're SOMEWHAT tougher than the 5e fighter/barb, but the difference isn't huge.

 

[Manbearcat]

Let's say 12th level.

Human Champion Fighter:

107ish HPs
GWM and HWM feats (so cleave rider and -3 damage incoming per attack)
Tunnel Stalker for the melee control/OAs
18-19 AC (depending on magic items)

Human Totem Barbarian:

120ish HPs
GWM (so cleave rider and -3 damage incoming per attack) and Sentinel feats
Wolf Totem so allies have ADV on attacks against enemies w/in 5 of you
maybe 15 AC? (depending on magic items).

Just quoted the above build here.

The Barbarian IMC has AC 20 - +5 from CON, +2 from DEX, +3 for a +1 shield.
The Cleric has AC 21 - 19 from +1 plate, +2 for mundane shield.

The Fighter in the Primeval Thule game I play in has had AC 21 from 2nd level - 16 from bronze cuirass, +2 DEX, +2 shield, +1 defensive style. You get the same in a standard campaign with 18 from plate armour, +2 shield, +1 defensive.

Those are both low magic campaigns, in a standard magic campaign I'd expect 12th level PCs to have ACs in the low 20s.

Hrmmm...let me see. A 12th level Barbarian has 3 ASIs. If one feat (GWM) that becomes 2, if two feats (Sentinel), that becomes 1.

Human Totem Barbarian with Standard Array is:

15, 14, 16, 9, 13, 11. Assume you go 3 ASIs instead of feats. You put the 16 in Con. You put the 15 in Str and the 14 in Dex. ASI you go Con > Con > split Str/and the 13 (probably Wis).

Your Unarmored Defense AC is then 10 + 5 + 2 = 17. I guess if you aren't going GWF then you're going to want a shield. Shield +1 gets you to that AC 20.

You're HPs are another +2/level for 144ish with halved damage.

Weapon +2 nets you +4 (Prof) +3 (Str) + 2 (Ench) = +9 hit @ d8 +3 (Str) +3 (Rage) +2 (Enc) = 13.5 ave damage @ 80 % hit rate * 2 attacks.

This guy is beefy no doubt. However...

He can't go Reckless Attack against this number of enemies (return is terrible and the cost is significant). His offense is not great. There is a fairly strong chance this guy is only killing one enemy per round.

He isn't sticky at all. He literally has no melee control. At 14th level, prone as Bonus Action comes online. Good stuff. But 0 control without feats.

The main deal here though is the Wolf Totem Warrior effect. That would give the GWF Advantage on most attacks. That plus Bless will turn the Fighter into a terror.

I assumed he would be built as a 2H weapon berserker with control, but we can go with this I suppose.

Now the Human Champion Fighter, assume something like:

16, 13, 15, 11, 9, 14. GWF + HAM + PAM + 2 ASI; +2 Str > +1 Str/Con. +1 Plate for 19 AC. +2 Halberd/Glaive.

With Tunnel Stalker, GWF, PAM, +5 Str, +2 polearm, Advantage on most attacks (Wolf Totem Barb) and Bless, this guy is your melee control and meat-grinder. Also -3 damage per/attack due to HAM.

---

I'm still seeing 30 % and 35 % hit rates against these guys. And again, if the Barbarian goes to a build that is more effective in this scenario (IMO and especially so with the cleric in play here), he is going to be hit on a 10 - 12 (12 if the rare magic item becomes Bracers of Defense rather than +2 weapon).

Also, if they aren't keeping up with the waves (which seems very possible at some point with the above builds), the prospects for Help Actions (or Help + Grapple) by the Orcs goes up which could possibly turn into problem (that the cleric would have to bail them out of, assuming it isn't in trouble itself as the "reapers" get behind).

In that kind of a scenario, craploads is the right answer. I've never tested this, but I'm willing to put my head on the block and say over 100 waves easy provided the orcs don't get smarter and retreat. So between 100 waves and endless!

<snip>

And healed a LOT, don't forget the support class which will also be 12TH level. Regarding Bounded Accuracy, it mostly depends on the initiative order. That is key.

I think a fair bit of it depends on the control here. I don't like this Barbarian build above (no control and paltry offense...basically blocking terrain, a buff-bot, and maybe averaging taking out 1 of the 4 orcs). You put two warriors who can (a) be blocking terrain, (b) make the melee sticky and punish foes who violate their control, and (c) have the offensive output to keep up with the waves without being overrun, it becomes doable.

If a - c fall apart, the orcs overrun the town, or waylay (and possibly kill) the cleric (even though a War Cleric is so stout), become too many in number rendering the DPR input too significant to keep up with...or a combination of the above.

But I think with the right builds (sub defensive Barb for offensive one without Reckless Attack), a - c can be maintained and the Cleric can sustain the two reaping juggernauts for a long, long time.

If I can find some time, I'm going to impose my will on one of my players to run this with a War or Life Cleric.

Spitball, the orcs hit 25% of the time, and they do average 6.5 damage after the -3 DR, so each of the fighters will take 1 hit every other round (1 of the 4 orcs will hit one of them). That gives the fighter about 20 rounds, the barb a tiny more, plus whatever healing they can get. They'll definitely hold off on the order of low 100's of orcs. (I am just assuming no orc ever survives a round in combat here, which I think is a fairly safe assumption, though probably a tiny bit optimistic).

NOW, lets spitball a 1e AD&D fighter, level 10, 65 hit points, AC -4, damage is probably irrelevant (will slag an orc per attack automatically) Its getting 2 attacks/round per fighter, so things are about the same there, but the orcs only hit on a 20, which is a BIG difference. On average each fighter will take 15 hits to kill, roughly, and at 4 attacks per round, that will take 150 rounds. So your AD&D fighters can hold off 600 basic orcs. They're SOMEWHAT tougher than the 5e fighter/barb, but the difference isn't huge.

I still see the hit rate being higher than the 25 %. I think 30/35 or better (assuming an offensive Barbarian) is more realistic.

Also, consider the default sticky melee in AD&D.

Also, while the 1 attack/character level wouldn't apply to orcs, they would apply to most all canon fodder in AD&D.

Finally, consider the AD&D 2e Fighter. The Heroic Fray rules extend that to Level - 10 in HD so it would apply to orcs for level 12 Fighters. And the AD&D 2e weapon spec train had one destination; pain. I feel pretty confident that both the AD&D 1e and the AD&D 2e Fighter would soundly defeat the 5e analogue in this scenario.

 

[S'mon]

I feel pretty confident that both the AD&D 1e and the AD&D 2e Fighter would soundly defeat the 5e analogue in this scenario.

I think it's generally true IME that the pre-3e* Fighter will kill more mooks than the 5e Fighter at the same level. It's equally true that the pre-3e Magic-User will kill more more mooks than the 5e Wizard at the same level. I don't think Orcs are an ideal comparison though; pre-3e Orcs are baseline mooks, whereas 3e-4e-5e Orcs are 'savage barbarian' Orcs. The role of the pre-3e Orc is more akin to the 5e CR 1/8 stuff - Guard or Bandit or Tribal Warrior stats.

*1e RAW evaluation is so dependent on the 1 hd breakpoint for 'attacks=level' that I don't think it's a good comparison. Personally I run both a Classic D&D game with 8th-11th level PCs and a 5e game with 12th-14th level PCs, and I'd say they work out very similarly - though the 5e numbers are bigger, things go down about the same. The 5e players probably feel slightly more threatened by encountering a large numbers of enemies than the Classic players, but they trash them ok all the same.

 

[S'mon]

This guy is beefy no doubt. However...

He can't go Reckless Attack against this number of enemies (return is terrible and the cost is significant). His offense is not great. There is a fairly strong chance this guy is only killing one enemy per round.

He isn't sticky at all. He literally has no melee control. At 14th level, prone as Bonus Action comes online. Good stuff. But 0 control without feats.

Yes the Barb-14 IMC is very much defence over offence:

Hakeem Grey-Wolf (Hakeem Hakem's son) of Clan Greywolf of the Midnight Goddess Hills, Sword Knight of Bondor, War Chief of Greywolf.
Altanian Barbarian Level 14 (Proficiency +5)
Armour Class: 20 (10 +2 DEX +5 CON +3 for +1 shield), AC 17 no shield.Move: 40' when not in heavy armour. Jump 20'.
ST: 20 (+5) IQ: 10 (+0) WI: 9 (-1) DE: 14 (+2) CO: 20 (+5) CH: 12 (+1)
Hit Points: 173 (17 + 12x13)
Bloodletter +2 Longsword (2 Attacks/Action) Attack +12 (+5 Prof +5 STR +2 magic) damage 1d8+10 1-hand raging (+5 STR +2 magic +3 rage), critical hit 4d8+10, rage 5/day

He has the same Control as any 5e PC: he gets a free attack as a Reaction when a foe leaves his Reach, and he can block a 5' wide space. If he wants to be Horatio on the 15' wide bridge, he needs a couple friends. At lower level especially my group would retreat from bands of orcs (etc) and seek a choke point to hold them off.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've heard that logic before, but never found it convincing.

The Defender role in 4e was clearly-defined and played a definite, contributing, role in the party. Defender features helped allies significantly. A defender by himself had features that essentially did nothing. Marking, most obviously. The same was true of the Leader Role. The Leader had clear contributions to make that flowed to the rest of the party, by himself, the leader had features that did nothing (many an allies-only buff, most obviously).

The Controller role was mostly just a tenuous excuse for grandfathering in more versatile and powerful spells for the Wizard. The Controller also had no one straightforward function. He imposed conditions. He created zones. He blew up minions and interdicted areas with the mere threat of his powers.

The Controller directly degraded the enemy's effectiveness, a result similar to what the Defender accomplished indirectly, but where the Defender did so by putting himself in harm's way, the Controller did so while simultaneously keeping himself out of trouble. Those zones and conditions and conjurations all served to keep enemies away from him, to make him a difficult target to engage.
And, perhaps, most notably, the Controller on his own lost nothing. All his features, all his powers, still worked, very well indeed. In fact, without a party to get in the way of his target:all-creatures AEs or queer his condition-imposition tactics (charging immobilized enemies, for instance), he was /more/ effective. The controller was the ultimate 'selfish' role - no wonder it was also the most dispensable.

Nor does melee vs ranged draw the line. In 3e you could create a 'battlefield control' build that was melee (with reach, but still melee, thankyouverymuch), that swept away swaths of lesser foes, interdicted an area, imposed conditions (mostly prone, but it was a nastier condition in 3e), and did it all while making himself a difficult target to engage - while doing nothing much to defend allies, especially melee allies who were just going to run up to enemies he'd tripped, anyway. Melee Controller, not Defender.

Heartily agree! Minions are great for what they do, which is the same thing Bounded Accuracy does with modest numbers of lower-level monsters in 5e - have a number of contemptible foes for the heroes to blow through and display their awesome, while still posing a minor threat - but when you cross the line into hordes (dozens, hundreds) of such foes, Swarms work /sooo/ much better.

I've certainly done some 'wave' combats, they allow you to use a larger total number of enemies without overwhelming the party, and to reduce the impact of certain player tactics. They strike me as a good idea in 5e, too, since numbers tell so heavily, breaking them up is even more critical.

Hordes as actual mechanical things on the grid in some fashion isn't so much a 4e kind of thing, which is why I didn't include it in my spitballing. The beauty of 4e is that there's NO MECHANICAL ANSWER to "how many minions can you take?" beyond "a whole bunch". You COULD use swarms for certain niches, but how many individuals make up a swarm? There's no exact answer to that. Beyond that you could make some sort of 'terrain' out of it, maybe even some 'terrain powers'. Beyond THAT you're just into SC territory where everything is abstracted.

Three characters faced with an endless minion generator, with the mission to stave them off as long as possible. That's DEFINITELY an SC, and its going to be a lot more dramatic than standing in the gateway endlessly repeating the same 3 actions. At the end the GM could easily flavor it as killing 50 minions for every success, or whatever.