D&D 5E Sell 5th edition to a 4th edition fan...

[Staffan]

1. Magic is rarer, but its back to being "I win" buttons. Its just a button pressed far less often than it was in 3e or earlier. While there are no save-or-die spells, save-or-suck (hold, charm, sleep) all still work like you remember them.

There are some other issues with save-or-suck spells:

1. Many have a concentration-based duration. That means (a) you can only keep one up at once, and (b) if you do, you don't have a powerful concentration-buff on yourself at the same time.

2. Others are hit-point-based, such as Sleep or Color Spray. That means you don't use them to win a battle before it has started, rather they become finishers.

3. Many also provide new saves each turn. Saves that generally are easier to succeed at than in 3e, because casters don't get their DCs up into the stratosphere.

All in all, save-or-suck spells tend to be more useful as a divide-and-conquer tactic rather than as an I-win tactic.

 

[dream66_]

I know this thread moved a lot while I was asleep and work, but wanted to say a couple of things

Out of curiosity, is your group using the marking mechanic from the DMG?

No, Unfortunately, the game I'm playing the Paladin in is AL so can't use optional rules.

Well, there's two separate things here. The first is that niche protection does not necessarily mean party building. It's more about how nobody is sneakier than the rogue, nobody hits harder than the fighter, and nobody is better at tracking enemies down through the wilderness than the ranger. The classes are actually good at what they're supposed to be good at, it isn't all just taken over by people with cool spells. It seems to me that 5e is based on the assumption that either the DM will deliberately provide good challenges that cater to different character strengths, or the players will play to their strengths and come up with strategies that take advantage of what they're good at (not at a combat level, but more on a larger strategic approach level). I agree that there really isn't much party-building strategy in 5e other than you probably want a healer.

See, I think that's my biggest problem, I decidely don't want niche protection, if the rogue is the only one who can do his thing I can't swap out a rogue for a warlock or whatever.

I liked 4e roles because it allowed me to ask other players very easily, what class are you playing, get back, "Rogue, Barbarian, Ardent, and Invoker." and know that I need to play a Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage or Battlemind. With these lose roles and even the Essentials stuff I can't do that. And weather I need to do that or not need to... I don't like that I can't.


As for the rest about fixes to 4e roles, I'll agree their not perfect, but I don't want to get into the details of all that in this thread.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

If 5E had a strong line of adventures I might play it more.

I've played all the classics and some PF adventures, which are excellent. Keep on the Borderlands, a bit of Rise of the Runelords, Sunless Citadel, Keep on the Shadowfell (awful), Kingmaker...I like the iconic stuff.

I must say pound for pound the 5E Starter Set is the most fun I've ever had playing D&D. In my mind it is the new definitive example of a D&D adventure. It simply boils D&D down to it's most simple, open, fun form.

Maybe that's a good hook for 5E. 12 bucks on Amazon. Try it.

 

[Queer Venger]

I'm going to be blunt: There is only one true way to sell it or any other RPG.

Sit down and actually play a game of it. Just one session. And, you can do that for free! The basic rules are available for free on the WotC website and can be downloaded at any time. It's simple enough to read them, let people make characters while you make a quick series of encounters, and then sit down and play.

And, if you don't like it? Well, you didn't spend any money on it, so you're out nothing but one single evening's time.

This. I'll second this.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

See, I think that's my biggest problem, I decidely don't want niche protection, if the rogue is the only one who can do his thing I can't swap out a rogue for a warlock or whatever.

I liked 4e roles because it allowed me to ask other players very easily, what class are you playing, get back, "Rogue, Barbarian, Ardent, and Invoker." and know that I need to play a Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage or Battlemind. With these lose roles and even the Essentials stuff I can't do that. And weather I need to do that or not need to... I don't like that I can't.


As for the rest about fixes to 4e roles, I'll agree their not perfect, but I don't want to get into the details of all that in this thread.

yea I really wanted classes and backgrounds to give you Roles in rp/interactive and combat/exploration to spread the love a bit... but I really want roles back. It made it soo much easier to do pick up groups...

 

[Remathilis]

yea I really wanted classes and backgrounds to give you Roles in rp/interactive and combat/exploration to spread the love a bit... but I really want roles back. It made it soo much easier to do pick up groups...

How much different is it now?

WARRIOR: Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin
HEALER: Cleric, Druid, Bard
CASTER: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock
EXPLORER: Rogue, Ranger, Monk

Arguably, some can fill two roles (a ranger can be a good explorer and warrior) but overall, they still tend to fall in broad groups. I guess if I went to jump into a group and they told me "We have a warlock, bard, and ranger" I might ask for more info, but generally speaking most classes still kinda fall into the four basic monster food groups.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

How much different is it now?

WARRIOR: Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin
HEALER: Cleric, Druid, Bard
CASTER: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock
EXPLORER: Rogue, Ranger, Monk

Arguably, some can fill two roles (a ranger can be a good explorer and warrior) but overall, they still tend to fall in broad groups. I guess if I went to jump into a group and they told me "We have a warlock, bard, and ranger" I might ask for more info, but generally speaking most classes still kinda fall into the four basic monster food groups.

yes and no, I mean I would break it down a little different, but I see what you mean...

 

[Authweight]

IMO in both 4e and 5e, people take party construction too seriously. I always encouraged people to just pick a class they wanted and play it. If you end up with a party full of rogues, awesome! You can assassinate whole rooms before they even know what's happening. Party full of wizards? Wipe the big bad in one round by dropping all your big spells at once.

It's more fun IMO to sit down to a table with a team built somewhat at random and figure out how to make it work than it is to carefully build a team. This is true in both 4e and 5e for me.

YMMV of course. But I sometimes think people took roles to mean, "required part of a machine," when really they were more like, "here's a general idea of how to play your class."

 

[fjw70]

'

IMO in both 4e and 5e, people take party construction too seriously. I always encouraged people to just pick a class they wanted and play it. If you end up with a party full of rogues, awesome! You can assassinate whole rooms before they even know what's happening. Party full of wizards? Wipe the big bad in one round by dropping all your big spells at once.

It's more fun IMO to sit down to a table with a team built somewhat at random and figure out how to make it work than it is to carefully build a team. This is true in both 4e and 5e for me.

YMMV of course. But I sometimes think people took roles to mean, "required part of a machine," when really they were more like, "here's a general idea of how to play your class."

Agreed.

 

[TrippyHippy]

IMO in both 4e and 5e, people take party construction too seriously. I always encouraged people to just pick a class they wanted and play it. If you end up with a party full of rogues, awesome! You can assassinate whole rooms before they even know what's happening. Party full of wizards? Wipe the big bad in one round by dropping all your big spells at once.

It's more fun IMO to sit down to a table with a team built somewhat at random and figure out how to make it work than it is to carefully build a team. This is true in both 4e and 5e for me.

YMMV of course. But I sometimes think people took roles to mean, "required part of a machine," when really they were more like, "here's a general idea of how to play your class."

Exactly.