Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[FireLance]

No more Waste Ink Pad Error Or a Waste Ink Counter Error plz check out how to reset epson

You know what? You're not going to convince me to consider 5e on the strength of that argument.

Plus, reported.

 

[Lanefan]

I'll reply to this as unfortunately I don't have time to reply to [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] tonight...

The short version is that 4e doesn't both to call out power sources in monster stat blocks (a pity, in my view, but you can generallly write it in in your mind without much trouble). But if you look at the Swordmage class you'll see plenty of spells that are cast via a melee touch attack. The Hobgoblin Warcaster is doing something of that sort.

4e isn't oriented that way. There's no assumption that the hobgoblin' spell is some widely known, generally available thing. The default assumption is that it's a technique that only a few hobgoblins have mastered.

OK, I kinda get it now; and probably would have realized more of this had I been running KotS in a full-on 4e game and thus been referencing its DMG, etc. But I was in fact running KotS as a 1e conversion, perhaps naively assuming all the basic info I'd need would be in the module and I could convert on the fly.

It comes back, I suppose, to my main beef with that module: it just doesn't bother answering the what-ifs - in this case, what if the PCs pick up that staff? What if they try to find out how it works? Or if its power came from the Hobgoblin, what if they try to find out how the Hobgoblin got said power? What if they tried to learn his spell, and how can they?

And if the module really does expect me to make this stuff up, that's fine too - but I'd expect it to clearly tell me I'm on my own! (this is a problem in 1e modules as well, the jumping-off points after which a DM is on her own are all too often not mentioned - this is an area I'd expect to have improved over the years, but alas...)

Sure, but all that means in 4e is that the hobgoblin is particularly dangerous (ie cuts through low level PCs' divine providence/sixth sense hit points pretty quickly). The system doesn't tell you whether you should think of that in terms of the hobgoblin's luck, or the strength of the electrical charge, or something else. That's up to the GM to narrate.

(After all, all 4d6 means in the fiction is that the spell can be fatal. But so can a d4 dagger. 4e, in its approach to hit points, takes very seriously the (neo-)Gygaxian idea that, as far as PCs are concerned, they are mostly not meat, but rather the ability or good fortune to stop your meat being carved.)

Whether my hit points represent meat or fatigue is in this case completely irrelevant. What matters is that I had 25 of 'em before that staff got me and now I've only got 8; and if it gets me again I'm probably going to be a crumpled heap on the floor.

Lanefan

 

[D'karr]

It comes back, I suppose, to my main beef with that module: it just doesn't bother answering the what-ifs - in this case, what if the PCs pick up that staff? What if they try to find out how it works? Or if its power came from the Hobgoblin, what if they try to find out how the Hobgoblin got said power? What if they tried to learn his spell, and how can they?

And if the module really does expect me to make this stuff up, that's fine too - but I'd expect it to clearly tell me I'm on my own! (this is a problem in 1e modules as well, the jumping-off points after which a DM is on her own are all too often not mentioned - this is an area I'd expect to have improved over the years, but alas...)

This is an interesting take. I had the exact opposite reaction to it exactly because I was so used to the non-explanatory nature of 1e.

In 1e, the module didn't bother to tell you the "plot hooks" between the city of Highport Officials and the Slavers running a trafficking operation out of a local temple. It didn't bother telling you how the PC's might take over the "fire cart" and use it. It didn't bother giving you an explanation for how the Aspis are working with the Slavers. It didn't bother giving you rules for what would happen if the PCs released the basilisks to meander around the temple. It simply gave you combat encounters and treasure. If the DM wanted to make the story more interesting he was on his own, and the module didn't clearly tell the DM that he was on his own. That was the basic expectation, in the absence of rules make something up that works for you, and your group.

I never had a problem with that and that is why I never had a problem with KotS doing the same. Could it have been better? Yes. But it was no worse than what 1e had done for it's entire run, and I had no problem with that. As a matter of fact that was what was expected in 1e, and was clearly assumed by all of the classic modules.

Where 4e really shined for me was in the underlying rules framework. When I inevitably had to "make something up" the game provided a solid framework on which to hang the adjudication. It made it so much easier for me to make ad-hoc rulings that were not entirely arbitrary. I always felt the rulings were very appropriate (balanced) to the situation and provided a well-thought out result.

 

[Lokiare]

This is an interesting take. I had the exact opposite reaction to it exactly because I was so used to the non-explanatory nature of 1e.

In 1e, the module didn't bother to tell you the "plot hooks" between the city of Highport Officials and the Slavers running a trafficking operation out of a local temple. It didn't bother telling you how the PC's might take over the "fire cart" and use it. It didn't bother giving you an explanation for how the Aspis are working with the Slavers. It didn't bother giving you rules for what would happen if the PCs released the basilisks to meander around the temple. It simply gave you combat encounters and treasure. If the DM wanted to make the story more interesting he was on his own, and the module didn't clearly tell the DM that he was on his own. That was the basic expectation, in the absence of rules make something up that works for you, and your group.

I never had a problem with that and that is why I never had a problem with KotS doing the same. Could it have been better? Yes. But it was no worse than what 1e had done for it's entire run, and I had no problem with that. As a matter of fact that was what was expected in 1e, and was clearly assumed by all of the classic modules.

Where 4e really shined for me was in the underlying rules framework. When I inevitably had to "make something up" the game provided a solid framework on which to hang the adjudication. It made it so much easier for me to make ad-hoc rulings that were not entirely arbitrary. I always felt the rulings were very appropriate (balanced) to the situation and provided a well-thought out result.

Exactly. This is exactly what I liked about 4E. Instead of having to do quadratic probability equations in my head, I could just look at a chart and see what the numbers should be.

It was simple to play and simple to run. I didn't have to memorize every spell the Wizard had and try to counter the broken ones like in previous editions, because in 4E the Wizard doesn't have broken spells.

Also they added Combat Superiority to 5E so the original post needs to be updated...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I debated the fact that 4E's monster creation system has strong ties to monster colour or fiction with BryonD a while back.

It's easy enough to make a tough dragon who can breathe fire: make it high-level and give it a breath weapon. Making it a solo monster is another way to make it even tougher. But when you want to say, "It should be as easy to tag the dragon with a beam of light as it is to hit the side of a barn," 4E will let you down.

In a sense, I suppose. What it's doing is saving you from yourself, a bit. If you give a monster a deplorable REF, it'll be auto-hit by REF attacks, and that's too big an Achilles heel for encounter balance to survive. You have thrown down a paper tiger, and the PCs have the scissors. Encounter balance can break down in any game, including 4e, that's just one pitfall it tried to avoid. You saw the same sort of thing in 3e with 'natural armor' bonuses that got very high for very little reason so that higher level monsters wouldn't be minced by iterative attacks, but could be hit by virtually auto-hit by 1/2-BAB touch attacks that set up saving throws (and, if it was a REF save, the broad-side-of-the-barn 10 touch-AC monster would still have a high REF, for some reason). Each game's monster stats bowed to the necessities of the mechanics used to model characters.

I am not going to pretend to have a good grasp of how this works in either system, but my gut says: in 4E the group defines the colour of their campaign as they play it; in 3E it's established when the campaign begins.

I think you're onto something. 4e is much more PC-centric. Monsters may be arrayed in status-quo, if that's the DM style. If you go to The Great Smoking Mountain, there's a huge red dragon there, whether you're 1st or 27th. But, how the DM stats the same monster may vary depending on the level of the party and the part it plays in their story. If you encounter an ancient red dragon at 1st level, it'll be a skill challenge to travel through it's territory without attracting it's fatal attentions, at high Paragon you'd fight it as a solo of near your level, at Epic, it might be statted as an elite or even standard monster of close to your level allied with other enemies to have a chance against you. The stats change to model the threat (or role) the same monster plays in the party's story at different levels.

In 3E, climbing a hewn rock wall is DC 25. That doesn't change as the game is played (that is, as fiction is created, the game world is explored, and characters grow).
...
In 4E, I think the relationship between colour and the reward system changes: you don't know what it will mean, when you first start playing, to make a Hard Level 30 Acrobatics check.

Not so much. Climbing is a skill in 3e, and you have some defined difficulties. Athletics is a skill in 4e that includes climbing, and you have some defined difficulties. Jumping (also a skill in 3e, IIRC) is a good example. You know how far you can jump with what DC in either game.

The idea that the DC of the same task (jumping over a chasm of a given width, say) scales with level in 4e is an odd misconception. I guess it comes from having a chart of easy-hard DCs in the book or something.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In a sense, I suppose. What it's doing is saving you from yourself, a bit. If you give a monster a deplorable REF, it'll be auto-hit by REF attacks, and that's too big an Achilles heel for encounter balance to survive. You have thrown down a paper tiger, and the PCs have the scissors. Encounter balance can break down in any game, including 4e, that's just one pitfall it tried to avoid. You saw the same sort of thing in 3e with 'natural armor' bonuses that got very high for very little reason so that higher level monsters wouldn't be minced by iterative attacks, but could be hit by virtually auto-hit by 1/2-BAB touch attacks that set up saving throws (and, if it was a REF save, the broad-side-of-the-barn 10 touch-AC monster would still have a high REF, for some reason). Each game's monster stats bowed to the necessities of the mechanics used to model characters.

Remember too, NOTHING stops the DM from making special provisions. I mean suppose you wanted to reproduce the 'smaug scenario' you'd just do it. The rules and guidelines are there to HELP YOU PLAY, not to dictate what can happen in your game. I've always been utterly perplexed by the idea that there are some sort of rules that you have to follow. 4e's monster rules produce good results for standard fights. They CAN work for other stuff too, but they're really just a starting point. If you want a dragon that has a pathetic REF score, just do it. There aren't some WotC police out there going to nail you for it.

I think you're onto something. 4e is much more PC-centric. Monsters may be arrayed in status-quo, if that's the DM style. If you go to The Great Smoking Mountain, there's a huge red dragon there, whether you're 1st or 27th. But, how the DM stats the same monster may vary depending on the level of the party and the part it plays in their story. If you encounter an ancient red dragon at 1st level, it'll be a skill challenge to travel through it's territory without attracting it's fatal attentions, at high Paragon you'd fight it as a solo of near your level, at Epic, it might be statted as an elite or even standard monster of close to your level allied with other enemies to have a chance against you. The stats change to model the threat (or role) the same monster plays in the party's story at different levels.

Not so much. Climbing is a skill in 3e, and you have some defined difficulties. Athletics is a skill in 4e that includes climbing, and you have some defined difficulties. Jumping (also a skill in 3e, IIRC) is a good example. You know how far you can jump with what DC in either game.

The idea that the DC of the same task (jumping over a chasm of a given width, say) scales with level in 4e is an odd misconception. I guess it comes from having a chart of easy-hard DCs in the book or something.

I think that basically what is less well defined in 4e is what exactly does a level 30 hard DC consist of? In one game it might be holding up a 5 ton block of stone for 30 seconds while your buddies escape. In another it might be picking up a mountain and blocking a pass with it. The tone of the game is much less nailed down in 4e, though admittedly it trends towards super hero like play.

 

[LostSoul]

In a sense, I suppose. What it's doing is saving you from yourself, a bit. If you give a monster a deplorable REF, it'll be auto-hit by REF attacks, and that's too big an Achilles heel for encounter balance to survive. You have thrown down a paper tiger, and the PCs have the scissors.

Yep. Two examples:

In my 4E hack game, I'm rebuilding monster stats on the fly to use "world appropriate" DCs. They were fighting a grell and the ranger was shooting its exposed "brain" area. I gave it a really low AC - its fleshy brain bits wouldn't be hard to penetrate - and it got blown away. (Well, it did almost achieve a TPK, but I rolled low to-hit a few times.) I'm not sure this is a bad thing - it allows some types of player choice - but I think I went too far in that direction.

In the last game of 3.5E that I played, my PC (20th level) has Wraithstrike and a +17 BAB. I ended up fighting some gargantuan CR 21 monstrosity. Big monsters usually have pitiful touch ACs, so I did a Full Attack with my Longsword in two hands + Full Power Attack + Wraithstrike + Haste and killed it in one round (something like 378 damage - I did end up with two crits, though).

I don't mind either case. In both circumstances the monsters had a weakness, and I like it when the players can exploit that weakness. I also enjoy a greater bonus to exploiting that weakness than 4E provides - but I think I would have preferred it if it were a little bit more difficult to assess.

In conclusion: I think there's a sweet spot between "auto-hit vs. its obvious weakness" and "hitting its weakness grants a minor advantage".

Not so much. Climbing is a skill in 3e, and you have some defined difficulties. Athletics is a skill in 4e that includes climbing, and you have some defined difficulties. Jumping (also a skill in 3e, IIRC) is a good example. You know how far you can jump with what DC in either game.

The idea that the DC of the same task (jumping over a chasm of a given width, say) scales with level in 4e is an odd misconception. I guess it comes from having a chart of easy-hard DCs in the book or something.

That's true, though I've come to believe that 4E might be stronger without those absolute DCs in the game - along with a lot of text on why it's built that way, how to set your own colour for certain DCs, and how that colour relates to Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In both circumstances the monsters had a weakness, and I like it when the players can exploit that weakness. ...

In conclusion: I think there's a sweet spot between "auto-hit vs. its obvious weakness" and "hitting its weakness grants a minor advantage".

I agree. An obvious weak-spot should be exploitable, but it shouldn't be absolute. In the d20 system, I'd say that swings of up to 5 in either direction are about the limit. So a monster might have 5-higher than baseline in one defense, and 5 lower in it's worst, for instance, and still be usable.

That's true, though I've come to believe that 4E might be stronger without those absolute DCs in the game - along with a lot of text on why it's built that way, how to set your own colour for certain DCs, and how that colour relates to Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.

It certainly wouldn't have hurt, since it takes the 'blame' for being that way, anyhow.

 

[Dantarith]

Printed Book Quality

I don't know if anyone else has addressed this however, since I do not see any post regarding the quality of the printed books, obviously because they are not even written yet, I am hoping that others will also reply and that someone at Wizards will notice this while they are actively checking this board ;^)

Please use a better ink and seal the pages better than the 4E books!!!

I remember the first time I got my brand spanky new 4e books and went to look at all the cool new images only to discover, to my horror, that just the oil on my fingers smudged the text and images just in the car ride home!

At any game session that included pizza (like there is any other food group besides Orange ) I was like, "ok let's take a break while we eat so when we are done we can wash up before we touch any of my books!"

I always wondered if it was an evil ploy to get us to purchase another hmm...

I went to digital since then but I still prefer to use books at the game table if I can without ruining them.

Heck even my AD&D red box material has held up better!

 

[Scribble]

It comes back, I suppose, to my main beef with that module: it just doesn't bother answering the what-ifs - in this case, what if the PCs pick up that staff? What if they try to find out how it works? Or if its power came from the Hobgoblin, what if they try to find out how the Hobgoblin got said power? What if they tried to learn his spell, and how can they?

And if the module really does expect me to make this stuff up, that's fine too - but I'd expect it to clearly tell me I'm on my own! (this is a problem in 1e modules as well, the jumping-off points after which a DM is on her own are all too often not mentioned - this is an area I'd expect to have improved over the years, but alas...)

Jumping into this conversation late but...

I think for me at least, this is the essence of what makes TTRPGs great, and what seperates them from computer games or just other games in general.

They don't need to tell you that stuff, and the more they do, the less RPG they are for me, and the more standard game they become.

I don't need rules for how a magic item is created. If it comes up I'll deal with it, but until then, it's magic. It's more mysterious, and the rules are whatever I need them to be.

The older I get the more and more in favor of minimal rules I become. Give me a compact set of rules to cover the basics and I'll go from there.