D&D 3E/3.5 Play Board Games Review: "5e really feels like the best from 2e, 3e and 4e."

[Mercurius]

The quote in the title is from this review posted on the news feed. I found it an interesting statement, if perhaps a bit premature.

Best from 2E - Yeah, I can see it. 5E captures the "essence" of AD&D but in a more streamlined, 21st century format. AD&D grognards will miss the Gygaxisms, but 5E really seems to pay respect to AD&D in both flavor and even some of the crunch.

Best from 3E - It seems the potential is there, although 5E is likely too simple for true 3E fans. But given what we've seen so far, I can see how optional modules could be placed over 5E give a more 3E uber-customization feel. Some have commented that 5E feels like what a simpler 3E might have looked like, and I think there's some truth to that - so in that sense it has some of the "best from 3E" in terms of a core mechanic with a streamlined game around it.

Best from 4E - This is where I most question the statement. There are a couple elements that seem taken from 4E, such as surge-like healing, but it seems that the aspects of 4E that really stand out as unique - namely the AEDU paradigm, power sources, and tactical combat - isn't there. Yet. So while it is easy for me to imagine 3E-like customizations, I'm not sure yet how 5E wil provide modules to simulate a 4E feel.

So far it seems that fans of 4E are most displeased with 5E, and it is hard for to imagine how this will change - although it is possible with the right module in the DMG. But that would have to be a helluva module!

What do you think? Does 5E seem to capture the best from the last three editions? If not yet, do you think it can?

 

[tuxgeo]

I'll skip commenting about 2E and 3E because I think you have covered those. (However, I won't try to say how well you covered them, because I'm only partly familiar with them.)

About 4E: I'm still trying to figure out what the "best of 4E" is. Here are some candidates:

(1) Roles: More than one class could play the healer, more than one class could play the skill monkey, more than one class could play the enemy-debuffer. I think 4E systematized that well, and the introduction of the healing Bard, healing Warlord, etc. was an improvement that D&D should never reverse in the future.
(2) Durations: "Until the end of your next turn" carried over intact from 4E to 5E, and I think it's great. Getting a new saving throw every round until you save is also great, and I think 4E may have pioneered that, too.
(3) Inherent bonuses: Those did not transfer intact from 4E to 5E, but the effect of them did: now it is no longer assumed in the design of the game that each PC will end up with sufficient magical power that there develops a requirement for the DM to compensate for that power with improved monsters.
(4) Formalized Backgrounds. This 4E innovation gave PCs the ability to gain skills separately from their classes, and I think it is a vast improvement.
(5) Specific spells: "Healing Word" and "Thunderwave" come readily to mind. The niches of "1st-level-ranged-healing" and "1st-level-close-blast-push" were not filled before 4E as far as I know. Other spells carried over as well. None are now as iconic as the famous "Magic Missile" -- but give them a few decades and they might become so.
(6) Self-healing either during or immediately after a short rest. It changes the game, but in an interesting way.
(7) Death saving throws. You're on a track to oblivion and could use some help. Great pacing mechanic.
(8) Rituals in a book. You don't need to be a wizard to cast rituals. You do need a book, but that book doesn't need to contain any regular spells. That's from 4E.

Innovations from 4E that are still missing:
(1) "Page 42" -- the default list of DCs and monster strength for actions the rules don't (explicitly) cover. That would be coming in the 5E DMG, I guess, but we haven't seen it yet, so it's too early to say it didn't carry over.
(2) Gridded combat: Promised for the DMG.
(3) Swarm rules: some scary stuff in 4E. We shall see about 5E.

 

[Andor]

I actually see a fair amount of 4e in 5e, it's just not crammed down your throat.

Bounded accuracy and the proficiency bonus progression accomplish 4e design goals.

AEDU abilities are there, the Warlock is structured that way, the Battlemaster comes close too. But it's not mandatory.

A lot of spells effectively have "save ends" durations. Although they also use concentration and fixed durations.

Bloodied is there at the fluff level, and in at least one mechanic so far.

Powerful mundane and morale based healing exists.

The cube spell shape is effectively the 4e blast shape. But you also have cones and spheres and cylinders.

One of the great bits of 5e design is that they came up with powerful and elegant mechanics. And then refused to allow them to become straight jackets. Advantage and disadvantage are great, but while they replace the bulk of the modifiers, some others exist, like cover and bless/bane.

 

[Raith5]

I certainly see bits of 4e in 5e but what made 4e work was the way the various mechanisms came together. For instance what made healing surges a strategic resource was the way that they intersected with 4e's focus on encounters. They were not bonus hp; they were the hard limit on how many hp one could use in a day and needed to strategically weighed against using daily powers. So I am leery of saying the presence of any one 4e game element is going to satisfy fans of 4e.

That said, I think the classes in 5e are great and really capture the essence of D&D across the editions - except the essence of a martial only ranger and a warlord. Personally I would like to see more complicated classes. But the great thing about 5e is that there is design space for these elements to come in.

So for me the criticism that 5e is too simple is something that can be built upon (for those interested) not an inherent flaw. BUt I am still looking forward to seeing what the 5e DMG says.

However, one great element of 4e I do miss in 5e is the idea of static defences, I think the 4e approach is much more simple and elegant than a mixture of attack rolls and saves. Also, for some reason I miss +1 wands and rods etc - I dont even like playing wizards/sorcerers!

 

[Jan van Leyden]

However, one great element of 4e I do miss in 5e is the idea of static defences, I think the 4e approach is much more simple and elegant than a mixture of attack rolls and saves. Also, for some reason I miss +1 wands and rods etc - I dont even like playing wizards/sorcerers!

Pretty much this. This basic idea - the active party rolls for success - is the conceptual idea of 4e. Also, I see no mechanical reasosn for replacing it with save weirdness.

But anyway, if I want to play 4e, I do play 4e; why should I use some 5e+modules surrogate instead?

 

[skotothalamos]

All the casters have at-will combat spells. That's definitely 4e. The fighter has Second Wind anda renamed Action Point. That's 4e.

The Sentinel feat is Marking, and anyone can take it. That's 4e improved!

Dragonborn and Tieflings as core races is also 4e.

Warden and Avenger 4e classes have snuck into the Paladin section of the book.

I think Channel Divinity originated with 4e, but I never played a 3e cleric, so I'm not positive on that.

 

[Sadras]

(2) Gridded combat: Promised for the DMG.

What do you mean by "Gridded combat"? Just to explain where my confusion springs from:
All creatures have a designated movement speed and reach;
Spells and class features reflect their applicable effect-range; and
Light sources, cover rules...etc have been included in the PHB.
So "Gridded combat" has already been addressed, from my point of view.

Are you referring to weather conditions, difficult or unusual terrain which might further impact on grid play?

 

[Thaumaturge]

What do you mean by "Gridded combat"? Just to explain where my confusion springs from:
All creatures have a designated movement speed and reach;
Spells and class features reflect their applicable effect-range; and
Light sources, cover rules...etc have been included in the PHB.
So "Gridded combat" has already been addressed, from my point of view.

Are you referring to weather conditions, difficult or unusual terrain which might further impact on grid play?

I think more tactical play like 3rd and 4th presented: 1-2-1 diagonal movement, more causes of opportunity attacks, maybe more frequent opportunity attacks, and other things that rachet up the tactical/mini-based nature of combat.

Thaumaturge.

 

[variant]

Best from 4E - This is where I most question the statement. There are a couple elements that seem taken from 4E, such as surge-like healing, but it seems that the aspects of 4E that really stand out as unique - namely the AEDU paradigm, power sources, and tactical combat - isn't there. Yet. So while it is easy for me to imagine 3E-like customizations, I'm not sure yet how 5E wil provide modules to simulate a 4E feel.

So far it seems that fans of 4E are most displeased with 5E, and it is hard for to imagine how this will change - although it is possible with the right module in the DMG. But that would have to be a helluva module!

What do you think? Does 5E seem to capture the best from the last three editions? If not yet, do you think it can?

Just because something was unique doesn't mean it is considered good by the reviewer.

 

[Pickles JG]

Save ends durations were sort of in 3.5 for hold person I think. While it was very widespread & formalised in 4e it has antecedents. (As an aside I can list a lot of things in 4e that I wish were in Pathfinder when I play that but none the other way around - this is not because Pathfinder is terrible but because 4e already incorporated the bits I liked the most)

The thing I like the most about 4e combat is the importance of positioning & then also forced movement effects & the control they can give. I very much doubt this will ever really be a feature of 5e as it would be tacked on rather than baked in.

The thing I feel is missing most from 5e is ongoing damage. Of all the myriad status effects in 4e this is one that always created tension but did not cause the frustrations that immobilises, blinds, dazes especially stuns would.

I wish there were a few more spells & effects that cause ongoing damage to add this tension back into the game.

Other 4e isms in 5e are the Paladin, Warlock & Ranger classes if they use combat buff spells. Hunters Mark & Hex are straight lifts though they have piggy backed on the spell system rather than a unifying AEDU system, which is a cool way of not adding needless subsystems (except the Warlock :O)

My least favourite feature of 4e was shapechanging. This usually was entirely cosmetic. I never felt 4e was homogeonous - characters played very differently despite all being AEDU (eg 3 rogues in one team I played by focusing on control, mobility & pure damage were far more different than any 3 Pathfinder rogues I have come across) but shapechanging was one area where it really was. So I am glad they have got a coherent set of cool shapechanging/polymorph rules in this edition.

Sadly it seems to be a bit busted at the moment but I think that just needs a little tinkering of the numbers.