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

[Neonchameleon]

Biggest issue with 3e/PF for me is the huge class imbalance - some characters have useful skills, others cn wield powerful magic, others get nothing, and are only useful in a standard 4-fights-a-day setup, if then.
This is equally an issue with the social pillar. 5e with its Bounded Accuracy, limited magic,
and easier access to skills does not have the 3e/PF issues.

It's still there a little - but to a much, much lesser extent than 3.X.

In 3.X a first level fighter is someone who wears armour and can move at a speed of 30 to effectively swing a sharpened piece of metal at people, while the wizard is someone with a few minor magical tricks. At 20th level a wizard is a demigod able to cast Wish or make their own planes of existence while the fighter ... is someone who wears armour and can move at a base speed of 30 to get sub-optimal attacks with sharpened pieces of metal at people or can stand still to extremely effectively swing a sharpened piece of metal.

In 5e this conceptual gap between what the wizard gains between levels 1 and 20 and what the fighter does isn't a lot narrower than in 3.X. However the fighter is at least good at doing something actually useful and there are actual meaningful restrictions on magic.

 

[Manbearcat]

It's still there a little - but to a much, much lesser extent than 3.X.

In 3.X a first level fighter is someone who wears armour and can move at a speed of 30 to effectively swing a sharpened piece of metal at people, while the wizard is someone with a few minor magical tricks. At 20th level a wizard is a demigod able to cast Wish or make their own planes of existence while the fighter ... is someone who wears armour and can move at a base speed of 30 to get sub-optimal attacks with sharpened pieces of metal at people or can stand still to extremely effectively swing a sharpened piece of metal.

In 5e this conceptual gap between what the wizard gains between levels 1 and 20 and what the fighter does isn't a lot narrower than in 3.X. However the fighter is at least good at doing something actually useful and there are actual meaningful restrictions on magic.

Going to quickly c/p something I recently posted from another thread that hasn't gotten any traction from long-time D&D players. The only real responders were @Tony Vargas and @pemerton who, likely correctly, pointed out that most long-time D&D players may not have had these "Battle of Thermopolae" tropes in their games and/or played much around or above name level (unlike the games I ran during that era).

ADV/DisADV isn't really controversial at all (nor are they innovative mechanics, not in D&D - 4e was rife with it - nor in RPGs in general). However, its proliferation to a central mechanic for all things is certainly "new." It has some wonky side-effects when it interfaces with various PC abilities or circumstances, but nothing like the side-effect of bounded accuracy.

This is where things get interesting (at least I think so). Bounded Accuracy was a design aim intended to protect against number inflation of either the "to-hit" or the "target number" in that core resolution mechanic (ADV/DisADV was intended to work with this paradigm and double down as a low mental overhead tool for circumstance adjudication). I don't recall during development where the devs were talking about BA being intended as a means to make combat increasingly lethal for martial characters who are wading into melee skirmishes with increasing numbers of canon fodder. Perhaps that was intentional, rather than an unintentional side effect. I just don't recall that being made explicit at any point (versus being discovered upstream by players).

The reason why I find it interesting is (intended or not), this is possibly the greatest deviation (mechanically and from a genre perspective) of all D&D past that 5e offers. And it is a significant one.

- AD&D's mook/heroic fray rules and the complete outstripping of melee PC's AC values versus mook's to-hit values.
- 3.x with the cleave/whirlwind/AoE meat grinder effects and the outstripping of mook's to-hit values by melee PC AC values.
- 4e Minion rules + high HPs vs Minion damage + means of self-sustaining (unlocking of own surges via powers/effects) + inspiration by allies (unlocking your surges) + all the various means of melee control available to melee PC (Burst Attacks, OAs, Immediation Actions, Auto-Damage vs adjacent to sweep Minions)

All of these system and PC build components served the genre master of "Big Damn Heroes Reaping Endless Waves of Canon Fodder". 5e's base system has altered/nerfed that canonical paradigm and there hasn't been much (any?) nerdrage over it.

As an aside, I suspect the Cleave module helps this out a decent bit. Perhaps that is why the nerdrage hasn't percolated? Most tables running with the Cleave rules?

Tony also agreed that it was likely unintentional/unforseen, making particular note of the reverse phenomenon; Ancient Dragons being particularly vulnerable to large swaths of peasants.

So honestly, I think the above unintentional effects of BA on martial warriors' ability to wade into hordes and reap canon fodder + the removal of a default "sticky melee"/the removal of 1/turn OA action economy (and the AD&D equivalent) is a pretty radical change to D&D's historical fighter paradigm. And it certainly isn't helping out the balance equation at high levels!

That is, unless folks are running with the Cleave module to amend the Fighter loss of "reaping" and the Mark module to partially (but certainly not wholly) amend the "sticky melee" change.

 

[S'mon]

That is, unless folks are running with the Cleave module to amend the Fighter loss of "reaping" and the Mark module to partially (but certainly not wholly) amend the "sticky melee" change.

I don't use the Cleave option, and the martial PCs IMC have no problem mowing through dozens of mooks. They just have to pay a bit of attention to tactical positioning, so they're not soaking too
vast a number of attacks each round. Recently they've been fighting alongside an army, which definitely helps, but I remember the storming of a castle where the Barbarian had no trouble wading solo through large numbers of guards.

I would actually say that 5e martial types get to kill more mooks than in 4e, because 4e
mooks in practice are always minions of similar level to the PCs, whereas 5e mooks may be baseline 2 hd guys - not that different from pre-3e. I think 3e is the real outlier, where even elite mooks are completely useless.

 

[Sadras]

That is, unless folks are running with the Cleave module to amend the Fighter loss of "reaping" and the Mark module to partially (but certainly not wholly) amend the "sticky melee" change.

Based on our table's experience, I have to agree with [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] here, the Cleave option is not a noticeable effect when dealing with mooks, we use it - but it is tactical positioning that plays a much bigger role especially for Battlemasters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would actually say that 5e martial types get to kill more mooks than in 4e, because 4e
mooks in practice are always minions of similar level to the PCs, whereas 5e mooks may be baseline 2 hd guys

Minion-sweeping was a controller duty in 4e, and the martial source lacked a controller, so there was that handicap.

4e Minions vs fractional CR 5e monsters, though, were also, in essence, more durable, since they could survive controllers' big AE attacks, even when 1/2 damage was inflicted. In 5e, auto-killing mooks with save:1/2 AEs is a feature from fairly low level on. So that could also relate.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't use the Cleave option, and the martial PCs IMC have no problem mowing through dozens of mooks. They just have to pay a bit of attention to tactical positioning, so they're not soaking too
vast a number of attacks each round. Recently they've been fighting alongside an army, which definitely helps, but I remember the storming of a castle where the Barbarian had no trouble wading solo through large numbers of guards.

Based on our table's experience, I have to agree with [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] here, the Cleave option is not a noticeable effect when dealing with mooks, we use it - but it is tactical positioning that plays a much bigger role especially for Battlemasters.

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.

 

[Manbearcat]

Minion-sweeping was a controller duty in 4e, and the martial source lacked a controller, so there was that handicap.

There were no great ranged martial defenders (the Hunter was crap, but certain Ranger builds could be slightly better than crap), but Fighters were certainly martial melee controllers. And encounter defining, game-changing ones at that!

I would actually say that 5e martial types get to kill more mooks than in 4e, because 4e
mooks in practice are always minions of similar level to the PCs, whereas 5e mooks may be baseline 2 hd guys - not that different from pre-3e. I think 3e is the real outlier, where even elite mooks are completely useless.

Really? That is interesting.

Consider the above 5e Fighter at level 12. He would probably be about level 17 in 4e. A level 17 polearm specced (feats and powers) Fighter in 4e? That guy will have:

1) A vortex of catch-22 control with reach with no action economy limitations.
2) Auto-minion stomp riders (at least Cleave)
3) Tons of off-turn actions to kill/control enemies
4) A suite of Encounter and Daily Burst/Blasts for Minions and Swarms (the other, perhaps even primary, monster for the "reap canon fodder" trope)
5) If he is Dread Reaper PP, his Cleave hits all adjacent and MBAs also get the Cleave rider
6) Perhaps a Stance that augments any of the above
7) Second Wind (probably tricked out to be Free) and up to 4 encounter powers that can trigger surges
8) Several magic item riders/powers
9) Normal Defender defenses and HPs

That isn't even really getting into feat shenanigans (just a few polearm feats and maybe a SW feat). I've run a game featuring that Fighter for 4 levels (this was early through mid paragon so I got to feel the weight of the DR PP capstone for a bit) and it was actually far worse (meaning more impactful/devastating in this specific scenario) than even Combat and Tactics, Grandmaster-specced AD&D (above name level) 2e Fighters with Heroic Fray rules.

[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?).

 

[S'mon]

Human Champion Fighter:
18-19 AC (depending on magic items)

Human Totem Barbarian:
maybe 15 AC? (depending on magic items)

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.

 

[S'mon]

Hit ratio against Defenders in 4e is pretty similar to the hit ratio against a Fighter in 5e.

This isn't my experience at all. In 4e the Fighter is getting hit about half the time, whoever the
attackers are (minions to solo), because they're typically the same level as him or 1-2 higher. In my low magic 5e game, mooks hit the PCs about 20% of the time, Attack Bonus +4 vs AC 21 say, but it would be less in a standard magic game.

 

[Sadras]

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.

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! Fatigue would most likely kick in first.

You have 3 PCs with a combined 7 attacks with the two warriors getting around +8/+9 (if not more) to hit against AC13. That is around 20% or less of a chance to miss. They're dropping a wave more often than not EVERY round. And those that remain require a 15 or higher to hit. As @S'mon said the AC would be 20 or more. Our Battlemaster is level 9, and his Armour Class is 20/21.
My experience with a Barbarian is strictly theory-crafted. No one has yet selected to play a Barbie at out table, but on paper he looks like a beast.

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.

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.

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)

All I'm saying that IMHO the 5e Cleave option is not half as impactful as you suggest, that is all. In a pretty specific scenario sure the Cleave is a great feature, but for the most part not really.