Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5958673" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>First, thanks for all the feedback, especially the critical parts. I will say two things straight off.</p><p></p><p>First the feedback is based on the idea that you are supposed to be able to play any edition of D&D in D&D Next. The feedback is based explicitely on that. If D&D Next were to have a different stated design goal/philosophy (e.g. "Back to the Dungeon") my comments would not be relevant.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If so they are going a remarkably stupid way about things. The Monte Cook "Passive Perception" issue was bad enough. But when Tom LaPille was actively deceptive about the way 4e worked that was stupid. If he hadn't mentioned the 4e Action Economy or had just talked about the removal of minor actions as a change from 4e I don't think anyone would have cared. But the "doesn't understand 4e" is the polite interpretation. (The impolite one is "actively and intentionally deceptive about 4e, deliberately annoying 4e fans").</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>False on both counts. Every scene needs a source of <em>tension</em>. But "Sit on the fighter's head - he's a fighter and therefore shouldn't be allowed to talk" is an issue. (See, for instance, the Decker problem I outlined)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I not only call your suggestion false, I call it actively insulting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You know how many fights the Warpriest in the Caves of Chaos got through with one casting of Spiritual Hammer? <em>Six</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are missing one <em>unexplained</em> point of to hit. You also have one unexplained point of AC extra. Even bigger for being on the battle line.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well you might be. I'm playing a fighter because I have a character concept in mind and fighter's the closest match.</p><p></p><p>And besides... how much "flexibility" does the 4e Fighter have? All of their powers equate to "Kill More Stuff" or "Be Hard to Kill", just like the Fighter from any other edition. How is this a new thing?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Becuase the Fighter's interrupt attacks are notably good as the entire class is built with that in mind. The second Guardian feat stands in isolation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course you don't. They just encourage it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Strawman. You can't <em>enforce</em> teamwork.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not for design. A skeleton, yes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It was. <em>And, if you didn't notice, there was a recent article on maneuvers</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're years out of date. See the Slayer for details.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Did you follow the linked At Will skirmish? You at least can have two distinctly different options.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure I did that per se? Context matters.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Both played and DM'd. And <em>speed</em> of play is not the same as <em>ease</em> of play. It's the speed that's been praised, and it <em>is</em> faster. I stated specific reasons why ease wasn't so good. And why ease works in 4e - notably I have literally never needed to look something up that wasn't setting specific in over a year.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course they do! However a push <em>means you aren't attacking.</em> It's also a glaring case of "Mother, May I?" And is literally something I tried in the playtest (pushing rats into the pit) and got no benefit out of.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've seldom had trouble *shrug*</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Once more I have to ask "Did you even read my post?" And "do you play 4e?" To stop the kobold skirmishers, knock them down or pin them in place with defender abilities. Melee the artillery. Immobilise or slow and kite the Brutes. Mark, mark, and Defender Aura anything. There are plenty of ways. </p><p></p><p>Most skirmishers are built around the principle "Do low damage unless they have combat advantage when they do high damage". So stop them flanking. Artillery is based around the principle "Do high damage at range and low in melee". Modern lurkers are based round the "Attack and be vulnerable every other turn" principle. Brutes are "High damage in melee, none or low at range".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Less of the Ad Hominem please. I run WHFRP. I'm looking seriously at 13th Age right now as a step beyond 4e. D&D next has stated design criteria.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So find a way to use your trained skills by engaging with the fiction. Skill challenges are, I'll admit, very badly presented and often badly run. And how on earth do you know they can only be used once in the challenge <em>in advance</em>?</p><p></p><p>This is why I haven't gone into detail about them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Streetwise and history to work out a shortcut.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You mean you took <em>no</em> social skills? That's a choice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5958673, member: 87792"] First, thanks for all the feedback, especially the critical parts. I will say two things straight off. First the feedback is based on the idea that you are supposed to be able to play any edition of D&D in D&D Next. The feedback is based explicitely on that. If D&D Next were to have a different stated design goal/philosophy (e.g. "Back to the Dungeon") my comments would not be relevant. If so they are going a remarkably stupid way about things. The Monte Cook "Passive Perception" issue was bad enough. But when Tom LaPille was actively deceptive about the way 4e worked that was stupid. If he hadn't mentioned the 4e Action Economy or had just talked about the removal of minor actions as a change from 4e I don't think anyone would have cared. But the "doesn't understand 4e" is the polite interpretation. (The impolite one is "actively and intentionally deceptive about 4e, deliberately annoying 4e fans"). False on both counts. Every scene needs a source of [I]tension[/I]. But "Sit on the fighter's head - he's a fighter and therefore shouldn't be allowed to talk" is an issue. (See, for instance, the Decker problem I outlined) And I not only call your suggestion false, I call it actively insulting. You know how many fights the Warpriest in the Caves of Chaos got through with one casting of Spiritual Hammer? [I]Six[/I]. You are missing one [I]unexplained[/I] point of to hit. You also have one unexplained point of AC extra. Even bigger for being on the battle line. Well you might be. I'm playing a fighter because I have a character concept in mind and fighter's the closest match. And besides... how much "flexibility" does the 4e Fighter have? All of their powers equate to "Kill More Stuff" or "Be Hard to Kill", just like the Fighter from any other edition. How is this a new thing? Becuase the Fighter's interrupt attacks are notably good as the entire class is built with that in mind. The second Guardian feat stands in isolation. Of course you don't. They just encourage it. Strawman. You can't [I]enforce[/I] teamwork. Not for design. A skeleton, yes. It was. [I]And, if you didn't notice, there was a recent article on maneuvers[/I]. You're years out of date. See the Slayer for details. Did you follow the linked At Will skirmish? You at least can have two distinctly different options. I'm not sure I did that per se? Context matters. Both played and DM'd. And [I]speed[/I] of play is not the same as [I]ease[/I] of play. It's the speed that's been praised, and it [I]is[/I] faster. I stated specific reasons why ease wasn't so good. And why ease works in 4e - notably I have literally never needed to look something up that wasn't setting specific in over a year. Of course they do! However a push [I]means you aren't attacking.[/I] It's also a glaring case of "Mother, May I?" And is literally something I tried in the playtest (pushing rats into the pit) and got no benefit out of. I've seldom had trouble *shrug* Once more I have to ask "Did you even read my post?" And "do you play 4e?" To stop the kobold skirmishers, knock them down or pin them in place with defender abilities. Melee the artillery. Immobilise or slow and kite the Brutes. Mark, mark, and Defender Aura anything. There are plenty of ways. Most skirmishers are built around the principle "Do low damage unless they have combat advantage when they do high damage". So stop them flanking. Artillery is based around the principle "Do high damage at range and low in melee". Modern lurkers are based round the "Attack and be vulnerable every other turn" principle. Brutes are "High damage in melee, none or low at range". Less of the Ad Hominem please. I run WHFRP. I'm looking seriously at 13th Age right now as a step beyond 4e. D&D next has stated design criteria. So find a way to use your trained skills by engaging with the fiction. Skill challenges are, I'll admit, very badly presented and often badly run. And how on earth do you know they can only be used once in the challenge [I]in advance[/I]? This is why I haven't gone into detail about them. Streetwise and history to work out a shortcut. You mean you took [I]no[/I] social skills? That's a choice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top