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

[fjw70]

I agree that 5e is a pretty good mix of old school (I.e. pre-3e), 3.x, and 4e.

 

[Agamon]

I agree that 5e is a pretty good mix of old school (I.e. pre-3e), 3.x, and 4e.

Yeah, since I read the final playtest, I've been describing 5e to people who've asked as a mix of the best parts of AD&D, 3e, and 4e. This headline didn't phase me at all.

 

[tuxgeo]

What do you mean by "Gridded combat"? Just to explain where my confusion springs from: . . .

I mean specifying exact squares. For example, if you're playing a wizard and you use Thunderwave to push a pair of goblins, do you push one of them to a square adjacent to an ally? Do you push one onto a square that you know is trapped? Is your front rank spread so evenly across the whole room that not a single goblin can charge through the front rank toward the wizard in the back without provoking one (and possibly two) Opportunity Attacks? Having exact squares makes those things unequivocal, whereas without them, the DM has to make a judgement call.

Of course, that (judgements by DM) is the original style of D&D; but 4E got fairly far away from that in terms of positioning. Perhaps the 5E DMG will bring that back as an option. If that doesn't make my meaning clear, then I don't know what else to say.

 

[Andor]

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.

Off the top of my head:
Shove p195
Maneuvering Attack/Pushing Attack p75
Fist of Unbroken Air/Water Whip p81
Charger p165
Sentinal p169

Plus the spells, at the very least Thunderwave and Thornwhip. I'm not going to go through the whole list.

If you want to force movement in 5e you have options. In our very first session the Monk was using Shove to toss Gobilns off a bridge to their doom. It's not a cornerstone of the system like it was in 4e. As with most things in 5e it's there if you like it, and easily avoided if you don't.

 

[Andor]

I mean specifying exact squares. For example, if you're playing a wizard and you use Thunderwave to push a pair of goblins, do you push one of them to a square adjacent to an ally? Do you push one onto a square that you know is trapped? Is your front rank spread so evenly across the whole room that not a single goblin can charge through the front rank toward the wizard in the back without provoking one (and possibly two) Opportunity Attacks? Having exact squares makes those things unequivocal, whereas without them, the DM has to make a judgement call.

Of course, that (judgements by DM) is the original style of D&D; but 4E got fairly far away from that in terms of positioning. Perhaps the 5E DMG will bring that back as an option. If that doesn't make my meaning clear, then I don't know what else to say.

With the 5e rules as written you can play Theatre of the mind, sand table style, or with a grid. Exactly nothing needs to be done to the rules to fully support using a grid map, the rules even specify how to use diagonal movement in that playstyle (p192.) Heck, you can even use hexes if you want.

 

[Sadras]

I mean specifying exact squares. For example, if you're playing a wizard and you use Thunderwave to push a pair of goblins, do you push one of them to a square adjacent to an ally? Do you push one onto a square that you know is trapped? Is your front rank spread so evenly across the whole room that not a single goblin can charge through the front rank toward the wizard in the back without provoking one (and possibly two) Opportunity Attacks? Having exact squares makes those things unequivocal, whereas without them, the DM has to make a judgement call.

Of course, that (judgements by DM) is the original style of D&D; but 4E got fairly far away from that in terms of positioning. Perhaps the 5E DMG will bring that back as an option. If that doesn't make my meaning clear, then I don't know what else to say.

The way I view the spell, Thunderwave provides all the answers you need. They get pushed away in a straight line away from the wizard - 2 spaces (10 feet), also refer page 186 for details re the cube, so one can't "zig-zag" push opponents into allies or traps...etc. The PHB is filled with details regarding grid play. If they did not intend for grid play they wouldn't mention it within.

We have used both TotM and Grid and have not come across any short-comings using the grid.

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.

The diagonal movement has already been offered as an option within the PHB (page 176). The only thing I get from the rest of your post is the need for more causes for opportunity attacks - which sure, perhaps the DMG will provide some obvious options, because everything else has been included within the PHB and does not need to be stipulated in "power/class feature form". It's an open system where not everything needs to be codified as anyone can:

• squeeze into a smaller space
• dash
• disengage
• dodge
• help
• ready
• grapple
• shove a creature
• knock a creature out
• hide
• moving around a creature/break up move
• drop prone
• interact with objects around you...etc

For me this is ticks the tactical checkbox.

 

[Manbearcat]

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?

The best of 2e and 3.x, yes. I think folks looking for a modernized progression of AD&D should by extremely happy with 5e.

4e? I cannot possibly imagine how 5e would produce the game that I've GMed 67 levels or so for. The 4e aesthetic at my home table is predicated upon:

1) Scene-based, noncombat conflict resolution and all of the infrastructure that supports it.

2) Significant forced movement and hefty battlefield control elements built into each class, built into the NPCs/monsters, built into the battlefield (terrain/hazard system) itself which all serve to make each and every combat extremely dynamic (control and mobility) and tactically rich.

3) The Healing Surge "system" (the whole of it and its context). There are multiple components to it. 5e's Hit Die do not remotely perform the same pivotal functions of 4e's Healing Surges:

(a) Unlocking them in combat is absolutely central to the "rally feel" of 4e play and a big part of the team synergy and solo tactical overhead that the depth of the combat system is built upon.

(b) Capping the work days worth of healing.

(c) Serving alongside dailies as the primary strategic resource that everyone shares, thus strategic decision-making is built around it.

(d) A beautiful open-descriptor resource to tax PCs with during conflict resolution or make offers to them (or them you) for boons. This feedback loop adds tension to strategic decision-making throughout the entirety of the workday.

(4) Unified class resource scheduling which promotes balance across the encounter, balance across the workday and makes it a cinch for the GM to predict just what threat level this encounter will produce (from cakewalk all the way to TPK). This and the Milestone system also makes conflict and adventure pacing predictable for the GM.

(5) Tight adversity/opposition budgeting at the scene/encounter level and all of the infrastructure that supports it.

(6) Strategic spellcasting (Rituals) siloed away from the class system such that everyone can gain access at their discretion.

(7) Intuitive, transparent roles and mechanics that coherently support those roles for both PCs and monsters.

(8) Transparent and simple rest mechanics (Extended and Short) that can easily be perturbed up and down to change conflict/adventure pacing to slow down/speed up or make it as deadly/punitive as you'd like.

(9) The Minor and Major Quest system being central to the trajectory of play and the stories that it produces (in the same way it is for MHRP's Milestones and DW's Bonds and Alignment).

(10) Significant player fiat embedded into the system for all classes.

(11) The intentional, significant impact upon play of the discrete tiers and their accompanying mechanical/aesthetic impactors (Theme, PP, ED and the distinctions made in the DMG and DMG2 about the play continuum through those tiers).

(12) Robust stunting and terrain/hazard/trap system.

(13) Exception-based and outcome-based design.


There is more, but those are the biggies off the top of my head that 5e doesn't possess and why I cannot see that it can coherently produce my home 4e game. Much of the design intent is actually swimming upstream with respect to, or at odds with, those things.

In 5e I see Bounded Math like in 4e. However, it isn't everywhere. It certainly isn't in the extremely important saving throw system. The evolving saving throw disparity through the levels resembles 3.x. So kinda, but not so much in a very key way. The Exhaustion Track kinda looks like 4e's Disease Track and I think it could be leveraged in a similar fashion in play. I actually like that mechanic a fair bit (elegant and coherent) but would need to see it on play to confirm that it isn't too punitive and it doesn't produce an anti-climactic "fatigue spiral." Backgrounds/Traits are very 4e and tied for my favorite part of the system with Lair/Legendary Monster mechanics. Both of those are awesome and very, very 4eish. The skill groupings themselves are fairly broad-descriptor (as in 4e) but their intent is to resolve micro-tasks, process-wise, rather than to interface with a conflict resolution system (as in all editions except 4e).

Outside of those few things (and the saving throw system not looking anything like 4e aesthetically or mathematically really hurts the first one...and the skill system being predicated upon task resolution rather than conflict resolution) actually porting over, meaning that their actual siloed nature bears legitimate resemblance through and through and their impact on play (with the infrastructure they interact with) would produce the same aesthetic, there isn't much else.

Again, a swell enough system but I can't imagine hacking (or even wanting to attempt to it given WotC ninja's didn't take my books or DDI yet!) my 4e games out of it. The edition's chassis and the design principles that underwrote the project just don't comport.

 

[Uchawi]

I can see hints of 4E, in the far corners of the 5E galaxy, but the rest is basically 2E.3E. It has a heavy emphasis of tradition for martial characters, and innovation and new ideas for casters. The later is where an attempt was made to mix editions, because magic can do anything.

 

[occam]

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.

It's missing because it's unnecessary. Page 42 was only required due to scaling difficulties. Bounded accuracy means you only need to remember 10/15/20 (maybe 25/30 on the outside), and those DCs will work throughout the life of a character.

A couple of other things from 4e:

- Monster design: Clean design, compatible with PC construction (like 3e) but unjoined from PC build mechanics (like 4e), using a presentation like 4e (but simplified due to the simper action economy), easy to DM.
- Advantage/disadvantage: One of the key mechanical innovations in 5e is an evolution of the avenger's main schtick.

I was (and am) a fan of 4e (as I was of 3e, 2e, 1e, and B/X), and I really like 5e so far.

 

[RSKennan]

This is all my opinion, of course.

Best of 2e:

-A Strong DM, capable of making rulings and not having an obscure rule contradict him/her as often.
-Focus on Exploration and wonder.
-Focus on the in-game fiction over the gamelike elements.
-The implication of many diverse settings where the rules work differently.
-Kits that diversify iconic classes rather than a million new classes (in the form of Archetypes).
-Simplified skills in the form of proficiencies. (I might actually want a bit more depth for my games, though)
-The ability to make new subsystems that don't have to fit a core mechanical philosophy if strictly necessary.

Best of 3e:

-A more rational ruleset than previous editions. Mechanics are reused when they make sense (but this doesn't become a straitjacket).
-Prestige class-like archetypes (archetypes are like a cross between kits and prestige classes, IMHO)
-Sorcerer (particularly the Draconic Bloodline)
-Conditions

Best of 4e:

-Dragonborn
-Rituals
-Some interesting maneuvers in the form of the Battle Master. Though I do wish they had gone further with making the core fighter have more options in a fight. I understand that they wanted to leave the straightforward Champion as an option, so this was the best that they could manage.

It's like they took the Soul of 2nd Edition, the Body of 3rd edition, and the Mind of 4th Edition.