Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[n00bdragon]

I find it hilarious how this topic has devolved from how to get people who liked 4e to like 5e to yet another topic where all the people who hate 4e justify (again) why they hate it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I find it hilarious how this topic has devolved from how to get people who liked 4e to like 5e to yet another topic where all the people who hate 4e justify (again) why they hate it.

There's been plenty of people on both sides edition warring here. People saying 4e has these problems, and the 3.X has these problems, and both in the context of "proving why that's bad" (sometimes even "objectively"). The conversation should drift back to a useful topic, but it's certainly not one-sided here. Both sides should tone it down than they have. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

That amounts to my experience too. 3e seemed to reflect a lot of trends in house rules and some game simplification (cyclical initiative, for example) that had debuted elsewhere. I no longer have the details but I swear I saw the 3 saves, or something like them, on a website in the 2e days. And even the skill structure, while fairly new to D&D (I can't remember how closely it developed out of Player's Option ideas and am too lazy to look them up right now), were familiar from other sources.

4e, by comparison, came up with whole new structures that I, at least, wasn't familiar with, and then restructured the classes and their mathematical progressions to fit into them. A positive spin might say that they did a lot more innovating. A not so positive one would be that they made a different game and slapped on the D&D brand.

Again, it comes down to experience. The list GregK puts forward are things I never actually saw in 2e. We never did the Skills and Powers thing, so, I have no idea what was in there. Ascending AC's? Really? I played with a lot of groups and a lot of different people and I never once saw that one.

OTOH, most of the changes in 4e I had already seen in 3e. Tome of Magic and Bo9S both saw play at my table, as did Reserve Feats and a number of other elements, up to and including healing wands for quick and easy healing.

So, to me, I see things as completely opposite to you Bill91. 3e made far more sweeping changes to the game, IME, than 4e did. Like I posted earlier, you could put a 3e player down and give him a 4e character sheet and he could play with very little teaching. The 2e (and certainly not the 1e) player couldn't play 3e without much, much steeper learning curve.

 

[Badapple]

The Rule of Six

I’m going to call this post “The Rule of Six”.

I call it that, because a first level D&D 4e character, whipped up in the online character-builder, has six different options they can do in a round of combat that is stronger than a basic attack. So, to address the original topic of this thread, “what would you like to see in the new edition, coming from the perspective of a 4th edition player?”, here goes:

I like 4e because of the options. My first level human fighter has 3 at will attacks, one strong attack that I can use once per battle, and one really powerful attack I can use once per day. I can choose a background that gives me an additional encounter power. That is six different options that I can do in a given round of battle that either do more damage than, or do an additional effect on top of, a basic attack. That’s just at first level. Every level I gain gives me one new power. Sure I have a six page character sheet, but it’s six pages full of juicy choices that I get to make (with all the rules on the character sheet so I never have to reference a book to play my character). I get that not everyone likes this, that it makes combat longer, and for many it is the single biggest dealbreaker of 4th edition, but it’s something I do like and as a 4th edition player something that Next will have to approximate in order to draw me in.
From what I have seen of the core of Next, martial characters don’t even begin to achieve this level of complexity. Since this “simple is more” paradigm is popular, this will likely be the core, and modules will need to be released that add additional character options for those like me that want the complexity. But a tactical module, or a suite of “maneuvers” alone will not cut it. The complexity will have to come from the character generation itself.

In order to entice 4e players like me, a module is going to have to be released beyond a “tactical” module that simply includes 3e style attack options like trip/disarm/sunder that are a trade-off for a basic attack. For me, that is simply not enough. If I can only trip instead of a basic attack, or I have to take a penalty to my basic attack in order to trip, then I might as well just basic attack. There is going to have to be some sort of character generation module that loads up a core character with additional manageable resources and attack options that let me “surge in power” on some rounds of combat beyond simply basic attacking and these need to be available at the same rate of acquisition as a typical 4th level character (ie 5-6 attack options at first level and one new one each level thereafter) I’ve come to be used to this and find that I like it. Call it “power gaming” if you like, but I like choices. I like seeing a battlemap full of figures that are being booted around the place, knocked down, or someone going crazy and attacking multiple opponents in one round or using a limited use attack because his target is especially vulnerable or the situation is dire and a surge is needed. For me, that is heroic gaming, and it doesn’t impinge on the story and the roleplaying for me to have chaotic, enhanced, combats and lots of choices to make in a given round, when the game goes into a combat.

The pitfall for 5e designers is that such a character using this “character enhancing” module is going to wind up drastically more powerful than a character using core rules. These powered up characters are going to destroy encounters balanced for core characters so the DM will have to get a module that increases the power level of the monsters. Or the DM will need to scale up encounters somehow (meaning extra DM work). Published adventures will have to split their precious limited pages putting in sidebars or alternate stats to cover the spectrum of rules modules campaigns may be using and that will limit the page real estate dedicated to the actual adventure. Not to mention the problems that happen when one player shows up at the table with a OE style core fighter and another player shows up at the table with a 4E style souped-up fighter using modules. And if a module soups up the martial characters then the spellcasters (that are designed to be balanced with core martial characters) will need a module as well.

I don’t want 5e core simple fighters to be balanced with 5e module enhanced complex fighters because that (to me) is lame. I’m not a particular fan of D&D Essentials. I don’t want core fighters to (hypothetically) get +6 to attack, roll d10+15 for damage while a “complex” fighter gets +4 to attack and d8+12 to damage but gets to trip/push/surge for extra damage and a couple times a day can bust out extra damage whoopass. Because then everyone busts out their calculators and char ops, and inevitably one or the other choice winds up being optimal over the other. And if the core fighter is found to be optimal than playing a complex fighter that will make me feel like I’m missing out.

It’s possible 5e will pull this off with their modules, but they have a huge challenge ahead of them. So that’s it for me, in a nutshell, what I would like to see in 5e coming from the perspective of a 4e player. The “Rule of Six”:

Give my first level D&D character six different options in a given round of combat that are either more damaging, or have an extra effect on the battle, than a basic attack.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

To who? I found getting into 4E much easier than 3E. But there we are again in the own-experiences-only area, and there's not much to discuss. I find the premise false based on my experiences. Others presumably feel otherwise. So...?


The impetus of this part of the discussion was Libramarian's claim that 4E is "clearly" the edition most unlike the others, in the context of arguing that 4E should be the one "left out" in order to please the greatest proportion of fans. To which Hussar responded that he thought the biggest difference is between 2E and 3E, presenting reasons for that statement, which I found quite convincing.

So it hasn't been about figuring out why 3E was "easier to get into". It's about refuting the assertion that 4E is obviously the most "not D&D" edition and therefore should be given the least amount of thought when designing 5E.

Well, there is another claim (was it in this thread), that the world "clearly" is usually implying exactly the opposite and just an attempt to avoid having to explain something.

If you really just want to go from on paper, then there is nothing clear at all. Stuff like demi-human level limits, roll-under instead of roll-over all make AD&D and D&D 3 entirely different.

But someone said "clearly" it wasn't that different. So, why would he believe that? How does he come to this conclusion, if we can't find it in the rules as written?

 

[slobo777]

For me there was a big split between AD&D and 3E.

Although I enjoyed AD&D for some years of play, I eventually tired of it, playing Runequest, Rolemaster amongst other systems, and routinely cobbling together my own systems (usually loosely based around Runequest).

For a while (couple of years) I simply refused to play AD&D - if it came up as an option I would offer to skip that session or game.

When 3E came out, I gave it a try, and I decided that I liked D&D again. Now, whatever the functional differences, however much someone points to "clearly X is like Y, but with minor difference Z" between AD&D and 3E, that doesn't gel with my experience. I grew away from AD&D, but I still play in an occasional game of 3.5, and am enjoying it. I also know from discussions on WotC's boards that I am not alone in having this perspective. I don't know whether I am in some small minority though

Edit: And to keep it on topic, I feel there's an equal or greater difference between 3E and 4E as there was between AD&D and 3E. I also feel that many changes in 4E are positive progression, and that DM-ing 4E has opened my eyes to more enjoyable ways of running an RPG (for me and I hope for the players). These aren't necessarily tied to specific 4E rules - although equivalent powers for everyone, healing surges, and PC race mechanics are good examples of the changes I like. I could happily play 5E if nothing came *direct* from 4E. But I'd like some of the philosphy from 4E to influence the 5E game engine. I can see this stuff in the playtest rules (Hit Dice gained during a Short Rest are an odd hybrid of Healing Surges and rolling for class hit points) - personally I'd prefer to see a little more,

 

[erleni]

My 2c about what I'd look for in 5e being a great 4e fan on both sides of the screen:

Character creation: I think Badapple nailed it down. I want maneuvers for martial characters (real ones, not trip-sunder-disarm junk) 4e or ToB style.
Improvising is great but would anybody think about improvising something like Lasting Threat or One Against Many?

Combats: I want tactically interesting combats with a grid or map-based set-up and miniatures/tokens. I'm looking for forced movement powers and zone effects,for meaningful ways to avoid everybody running around the battlefield unscathed and terrain effects.

Monsters: I'm looking for meaningful mosters who are not just a bag of HP or a living spellbook.

DMing: I want an easy way to create encounters on the fly and be able to judge their difficulty at a glance.

Rules: I want clear rules to avoid lenghty discussions at the table. And more narrative power to the players. I'm a DM for 50% of the time but I don't like the degree of power the DM had in 1-3.x editions. 4e has better DM vs. Players power balance for my taste.

These are the main improvements I saw in 4e compared to previous editions.

Looking at the other side, what I'd like to change and would see as an improvement over 4e:

Multiple attacks and static bonuses: take them away!!! They have been an uncontrollable mess in all editions (see the full attack action being almost always the best solution for fighters in 3e and multiattacking being the only viable solutions for strikers in 4e, to the point that a gouge wielding wizard/Kulkor Arms Master was a viable striker). By the way they also take time at the table.

Feat taxes: do not balance math with feats.

Magic Items: I like what Mearls said recently. Magic items in 4e seemed a spare parts list (except artifacts and set-items).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, it comes down to experience. The list GregK puts forward are things I never actually saw in 2e. We never did the Skills and Powers thing, so, I have no idea what was in there. Ascending AC's? Really? I played with a lot of groups and a lot of different people and I never once saw that one.

OTOH, most of the changes in 4e I had already seen in 3e. Tome of Magic and Bo9S both saw play at my table, as did Reserve Feats and a number of other elements, up to and including healing wands for quick and easy healing.

So, to me, I see things as completely opposite to you Bill91. 3e made far more sweeping changes to the game, IME, than 4e did. Like I posted earlier, you could put a 3e player down and give him a 4e character sheet and he could play with very little teaching. The 2e (and certainly not the 1e) player couldn't play 3e without much, much steeper learning curve.

But if you are going to include Tome of battle, you kind of have to include skills and powers. Even the idea of a unified d20 mechanic was being discussed at tsr when they made alternity (never played it so not sure how well it lived up to the stated goal). So I think the way later material was incorporated to the next edition is quite similar in both cases. Still I dont consider skills and powers or tome of battle reflective of standard 2e or 3e games. These were peripheral options in my view. That is why I have tried to compare the core books.

This is a subjective call, but I honestly find 4e a much bigger jump from the previous edition than 3e.

 

[Fifth Element]

But someone said "clearly" it wasn't that different. So, why would he believe that? How does he come to this conclusion, if we can't find it in the rules as written?

He could believe it because, as many people have mentioned, they're not just looking at the game per se, but how it was played at their tables. They're looking not just at the rules, but how they changed the rules for their own purposes. As I said, they can perceive the difference differently because of that, but you need more than just your perceptions to support a claim that one edition of D&D should be largely ignored in favour of the others when designing 5E.

Who knows? Maybe the person in question used Skills & Powers in 2E, then went to 3E, and as such minimized the apparent difference, but then never used the Tome of Battle in 3E, and so sees fighters with daily powers in 4E as some big new thing.

But if you are going to include Tome of battle, you kind of have to include skills and powers.

Indeed, as I mentioned above (in reverse). Someone mentioned that 3E isn't that different from 2E if you include skills & powers. But it you want to bring that into the discussion, then you also have fighters with daily powers in 3E. So it closes the gap both between 2E and 3E, and between 3E and 4E, which is hardly surprising. Editions develop over time and ideas from later development in one edition are often carried over into the next.

This is a subjective call, but I honestly find 4e a much bigger jump from the previous edition than 3e.

And I honestly find 3E a much bigger jump from the previous edition than 4E. That by itself is presumably enough to defeat the idea that 4E is "clearly" the most different, and as such it should be largely ignored when designing 5E.

 

[Zustiur]

It isn't contradictory because the design here is to deal with the fact that the base is split three ways by offering three (maybe four) seperate lines fully tailored to each camp. So in this nstance you are not splitting the base further, rather you are retaining the current base by building on 4e with a 4e revised line, bringing back 3e customers with a revised 3e that is in the spirit and mold of the original, and reclaiming AD&D fans by doing a classic edition line. These would still all be new, but made in a way to appeal to the fans of those editions. It does have risks but it really isn't that different from what they are proposing in Next. They are just better able to customize the "modules" by removing the core system. So the 4e version isn't hindered by the fact that the core accomodotes 3e, and 3e revised isn't hindered by the need to seriously limit multiclassing for other editionsin the core. Each line will be more perfect for each target audience because they are not forced to share core mechanics.

The edition treadmill is different because you lose customers with each split. But if a split exists andyou can offer up different products for each group, you can retain those customers.

Well thank you for the explanation. I can understand what you're saying, but from my point of view, doing a 'revised 4e', 'revised 3e' and 'classic' sounds like 3 new editions to me, likely as not to create more splits in the community.
Instead of 5 editions, you'd now have 7.
Of course, that depends upon how much revision you do. And no matter how much or how little you do, people would complain about it. "Should have done more", "Should have left it alone". I also can't get past the concept that players of Classic would want elements of 4Er, and players of 3Er would want elements of Classic, and so on. One edition which can be shifted in many different ways seems like a sensible option.
[MENTION=326]Upper_Krust[/MENTION] I'd love to know how you figured those numbers. Every calculation I've done says that you'd need to roll at least 1 higher on the d20 to hit at 30th than at 1st. Perhaps PM me the details -it's not on topic for this thread.

I usually DM. I've never actually played a wizard, and the only cleric I've played is in a game where resting was irrelevant (short adventures, level up between each adventure). So I would have to argue that my love of Vancian magic isn't due to the enjoyment of dominating as a spellcaster. Personally I think it's more because DND was the first fantasy I really knew of (other than the Narnia books). I grew up with Vancian specifically because it was in DND. It's intrinsically tied to DND in my mind. I've never read any of the books in appendix N, so my love for it hasn't come from that source. My brother explained how memorization worked when I was about 7 and it just made sense to me.

It shouldn't be any surprise then to know that I'm in the 'DND without Vancian isn't real DND' camp.
[MENTION=86594]Biga[/MENTION]pple Parts of your post really sum up the things I hate about 4E. I don't mind that encounter and dailies are better than a basic attack, but I really feel that at-wills should be on par with basic. That way you have 7 or 8 valid options at level 1. Also it reduces some of the 'wuxia' feel. It's the discrepancies between players like you and I that is going to make WotC's goal so difficult. Based on that post alone, I think you and I are about as far apart in preference as Hussar and I. Believe me, Hussar and I are a very long way apart indeed.


Regarding the 2->3 and 3->4 jumps, I can see both sides of the argument. Fewer mechanics survived the transition between 2 and 3 than 3 and 4. However, the things that 4E changed did so in a more significant way. 3E may have made a lot of changes, but the premise remained mostly the same. 4E kept a lot of mechanics, but changed some of the paradigms. Negative AC to Positive AC is easier to swallow than Vancian to AEDU.

When I read the 3.0 book I kept finding that the changes made sense (to me) and were quite sensible. When I began playing I noticed these changes even more.
When I read the 4E book I kept finding that the changes made me say 'WTF', and some of those changes still go against the grain 3-4 years later.
I understood why things shifted in 3E, but 4E went about fixing 'problems' that I'd never encountered in the first place.


What am I left with now? I've spent so much time on forums and playing 4E that I can see the flaws in 3E. The flaws in 4E lead me not so much to hate the game, but to turn it into a different type of game. To me, 4E is becoming more and more of a board game. Not because it somehow 'prevents' roleplaying, but because it does tactical combat so well that it makes me want to play a game purely for the tactical combat. As I've said elsewhere; 4E is a good GAME, it's just not what I think of when I want to play DND. I used to play Warhammer 40k for my tactical fix. Ever since starting 4E I haven't felt any desire to play W40k at all. I'm already getting my tactical fix. I'm also getting my strategic fix from character building, rather than army selection.

The result of the above paragraph is that I'm no longer satisfied with either edition. I don't want a revised 3E (I'm already playing Pathfinder and it doesn't suit), I definitely don't want a variation of 4E. I could be tempted by an AD&D, but I think ultimately, I want what WotC is doing. I want a rethink, taking all the lessons from all of the editions. I want known problems to be re-examined. I want old solutions to be re-evaluated, and new solutions proposed. I want to have rules broken into little packages that I can apply as I choose because ultimately; that's what I'd be doing regardless of what they write.

More than once in the last few months I've thought, "That is a great idea, I want that in my next game" and recorded the detail. If 5E doesn't tick enough of those boxes, I'll damn well take the core and re-write it into Zustiur's Edition. ZE if you will. While I think of it as my edition, I have to give credit where it is due. Nearly every one of the ideas I've written down thus far has come from someone on these very forums.

What will win over this player? A combination of things from all editions, and huge amount of re-simplification. The single thing I like the most about 5E right now is the number of pages it fits in. Modules, Spells, Magic Items and Monsters can all take up as many pages as you like, but I want the core to be quick to read, easy to understand, and logically consistent.

I want a core that I can use as a springboard for any game I care to play or DM. I want to see new players who aren't put off by the sheer volume of information they have to take in. I want introductory packages with the complete 'core' in about 50 pages (roughly A5). DMs can have a second smaller book in the same bundle if required. And the final caveat of this point; I want those 50 pages to be readable!! I love reading, yet I cannot make myself read 4E's player books. I want to return to the days where I'd flick open the PHB at a random page and enjoy re-reading whatever paragraph my eyes settled on. (This isn't a nostalgia thing either, I still get that feeling from the 2E PHB)