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

[Neonchameleon]

I hadn't actually read this.

You can build a 4E style game out of 5E, by actually reading the DMG and choosing your options, but you can’t do the reverse with 4E for any other style.

You can play a half-assed unbalanced version of 4e with lukewarm flavour, very limited kinaesthetic combat, weak tactical combat and broken resource management in 5e. You can play hardcore dungeon crawling in 4e - just ask the 4thcore folks. You can play survival horror in 4e very easily and it works better than in any other D&D - you just keep the pressure on to prevent short rests. And you do all this with precisely no house rules although I favour one (8 hours for recovery of all spells and hp was a mistake).

Further 4e is better at high combat adventure paths with setpiece combats of the sort put out starting with DL1 and regularly put out by Paizo than the systems they were written for are. You simply don't get the campaign-breaking magic in 4e that you do especially in 3.X. You've no need of the immersion breaking Obscure Death Rule from Dragonlance.

Where 4e really struggles is in a few places.
1: Combat stomps. (That Keep on the Shadowfell has from memory 17 combats in a row is what dooms it. 4e does epic setpiece combats brilliantly but they should be dessert not the maincourse).
2: Dungeon crawls with regular small combats. 4e does the small attritional combat very badly.
3: The King part of Adventurer/Conqueror/King. Something that was dropped by 3.0
4: World ruling wizards in the 3.X mold.
5: Extended rests should never have been 8 hours by default. (This applies to all modes of D&D - the wizard getting all their spells back in 8 hours is something that causes problems all over the place).

Would you only be happy if all gamers were forced to play in the One True Way that is 4E?

No. Which is why I own multiple systems. Both D&D and not. The day D&D does Monsterhearts or Fiasco as well as either of those systems I'll give up on any idea that it's D&D. But multiple systems is part of the point. I'd rather distinct systems that do what they do well than a mish-mash that does a lot of things badly.

Also 5e is worse at being 4e than 4e is at being 3.5. 4e took one of the dominant playstyles 3.5 tried for and did it really well. It also, as I've mentioned, does quite a lot of things better than other editions. 4e fails to be the hardcore dungeon crawler of oD&D, BECMI, or even 1e. And doesn't even try. Because it knew that you can't have one game that's all things to all people and make it good at them.

 

[TrippyHippy]

You’re just talking smack now, frankly. The first thing that would help anybody to help you, is if you just admit to having not actually read the 5E DMG in any great detail. But, I can’t be bothered doing that with you.

May I just ask, seeing as you are on a rampage on this subject, if you hate 5E so much then why are you spending such an inordinate amount of time on a 5E forum?

I mean, to reverse the OPs original question, you are not going to evangelically convert anybody here back to 4E - so why are you bothering?

 

[Neonchameleon]

You’re just talking smack now, frankly. The first thing that would help anybody to help you, is if you just admit to having not actually read the 5E DMG in any great detail. But, I can’t be bothered doing that with you.

May I just ask, seeing as you are on a rampage on this subject, if you hate 5E so much then why are you spending such an inordinate amount of time on a 5E forum?

I mean, to reverse the OPs original question, you are not going to evangelically convert anybody here back to 4E - so why are you bothering?

This is largely a figment of your imagination. I have posted in a grand total of two threads on the front page of the 5e forum - and the other thread I posted in was to praise the design of the 5e Warlock and point out its use as a superb illusionist. Hardly the mark of someone who hates 5e as much as you seem to think. It's not my game but it has its good points. Unfortunately its ability to be more than a pale imitation of 4e is not one of them.

If I could be said to hate anything, it's anti-4e edition warriors who are making claims that are no more true now than they were in 2008. And who are the absolute worst people to sell 5e to 4e fans - but still felt the need to jump into this thread. If you want to sell anything to fans of something else, you don't do it by running down what they like. The only approach that's worse than taking a steaming dump on something they are fans of is taking a steaming dump while demonstrating you do not understand it - that's not just annoying, but it demonstrates that your judgement is not to be trusted.

If you want to sell 5e to 4e fans, point out what 5e does well. Only the blindest fans think that 4e has no issues. (The same goes for any other game). I came into this thread hoping to see that. And found anti-4e edition warriors. An ideal result from this thread for me at the start would have been to see things I missed in 5e. At this point the best result I can hope for is if you personally decided to never mention 4e again. It's clear you both don't like it and don't understand it. Your opinions on it aren't going to help anyone (including you) enjoy 5e any more. They are just going to annoy people - including yourself as you start remembering the game in your head (and, to be fair, in Keep on the Shadowfell; I consider it an even worse module than The Forest Oracle, which at least has entertainment value).

 

[TrippyHippy]

This is largely a figment of your imagination. I have posted in a grand total of two threads on the front page of the 5e forum - and the other thread I posted in was to praise the design of the 5e Warlock and point out its use as a superb illusionist. Hardly the mark of someone who hates 5e as much as you seem to think. It's not my game but it has its good points. Unfortunately its ability to be more than a pale imitation of 4e is not one of them.

If I could be said to hate anything, it's anti-4e edition warriors who are making claims that are no more true now than they were in 2008. And who are the absolute worst people to sell 5e to 4e fans - but still felt the need to jump into this thread. If you want to sell anything to fans of something else, you don't do it by running down what they like. The only approach that's worse than taking a steaming dump on something they are fans of is taking a steaming dump while demonstrating you do not understand it - that's not just annoying, but it demonstrates that your judgement is not to be trusted.

If you want to sell 5e to 4e fans, point out what 5e does well. Only the blindest fans think that 4e has no issues. (The same goes for any other game). I came into this thread hoping to see that. And found anti-4e edition warriors. An ideal result from this thread for me at the start would have been to see things I missed in 5e. At this point the best result I can hope for is if you personally decided to never mention 4e again. It's clear you both don't like it and don't understand it. Your opinions on it aren't going to help anyone (including you) enjoy 5e any more. They are just going to annoy people - including yourself as you start remembering the game in your head (and, to be fair, in Keep on the Shadowfell; I consider it an even worse module than The Forest Oracle, which at least has entertainment value).

Well, you still haven’t pointed out why you are hanging around on a 5E forum just to make insulting remarks about 5E and perpetuate a war that, in your own words, was something that was happening as far back as 2008….and you really have, whether you think that is imagined or not! Or why you purport to be an expert on the 5E game when you haven’t actually read a lot of it. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, you still haven’t pointed out why you are hanging around on a 5E forum just to make insulting remarks about 5E,

That's because I've pointed out that I do not do that. That I praise 5e where it deserves it (as for the Warlock). And I criticise it where it deserves it (its ability to be everything else).

and perpetuate a war that, in your own words, was something that was happening in 2008….and you really have, whether you think that is imagined or not. I’ll leave it at that.

It's only an edition war when 4e fans start correcting misconceptions and baseless accusations. Is that it?

 

[TrippyHippy]

You haven’t corrected anything, factually. You’ve merely opined your view, which is askew.

 

[Eric V]

Trippy, you're just arguing to argue. Neonchameleon is actually addressing the OP.

I like 4e and was considering switching. We eventually did, and I'm probably enjoying 5e more than NC is. Having said that, he's spot-on in his assessments of what 4e does better than 5e, and if the original poster wanted information on the strengths and weaknesses of 5e compared to 4e (especially for a group that really likes 4e) than NC is delivering.

You are not. Pointing out an optional rule in the DMG does not make the game run like 4e. In fact, many of the optional rules in the 5e DMG, were lacking in follow-through advice, a complaint I've seen in more than a couple of places around here.

 

[Authweight]

The thing is that in 5e a healer is necessary. In 4e a leader is not - and a Paladin is a more than good enough healer.
The thing is that a 4e Barbarian makes a better tank than just about any 5e class due to the different way Opportunity Attacks work.
The thing is that in 4e you can have an archer/sniper easily enough as long as you give up the need to write fighter on the top of your character sheet. In 5e you can not play a Warlord worthy of the name without entirely homebrewing the class.
The thing is that if you think a 4e wizard can't do in your face damage you're relying on just the very earliest books; a Pyromancer/Evoker is scary.
The thing is that you can provide emergency in combat hit point restoration from the fighter in 4e by a number of means. Acting out of role is easier in 4e than in literally any other edition of D&D unless you're playing a 3.X CoDzilla.

The D&Ds with roles that you must fill are those other than 4e where people need to play the healer or the game assumptions break. This isn't about descriptive or prescriptive roles - it's about the pacing of the game itself.

Something that a lot of people who haven't played much 4e don't seem to understand is just how flexible and hackable the system is. You can build damage-oriented fighters, utility/control rogues, blaster wizards, and all sorts of other things. The roles are more about how classes lean than what you absolutely must do with them or the game punishes you.

However, putting many of these builds together requires a fair amount of system mastery, which is a problem of 4e. The system has a lot of options, but you really need to know what those options are and how they all work together if you're going to bash together an outside-the-box build option.

Another thing people who haven't played 4e don't always get is that the roles are mostly optional. The game's design is robust enough that you don't need any particular role for a party to work (although I do think that a party with a leader will almost always be more effective than a party without a leader, making it the closest 4e has to a mandatory role). The roles describe the way a class contributes to the party's success, but they don't describe crucial things you need to have in your party no matter what. It's also not the case that the roles synergize so well with each other that you need the combos to be effective. If you swap a defender for an extra striker, you lose some tankiness, but you gain a bunch of extra damage. You change your strategy a bit, but it still works out fine.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The optional rule in the DMG is directly included to allow the game to beg shaped like 4E. I’m not sure what more advice they could have given on the matter of healing. It was discussed thoroughly. How was it lacking?

For the record, I played D&D4 too. Lots of times. Was it fun - yes, in a way. Did it give me the D&D experience I grew up with and was looking for. Absolutely not. It was a high powered miniature-based skirmish game, with little opportunity to role-play in the manner I was accustomed to. Does 5E allow me to do this - yes, and then some.

Now that above is a true, honest appraisal of my direct experience - which apparently is a ‘misconception’ and worth having a fight about.

The OP asked about selling the 5E game to a 4E fan - and I categorically do not believe we can or should - but for the record, again the design brief of the 5E game is to allow as many styles as possible, including 4E. That is the point I have consistently been making - I have no qualms with people playing the game in whatever style they want.

And whether you like the 5E design or not there has at least been an earnest attempt to allow you to build a 4E style game within the options laid out in the 5E DMG. The reverse is simply unattainable, because 4E only allows you to play in that one distinct way. A style which, for me, did not allow me to role-play in the way I would have liked.

 

[TheFindus]

I find it hard to sell 5th edition to somebody who really likes 4E. But one of the things that can be tiresome in 4E, as others have already mentioned, is the length of combat. And the length of combat is reduced in 5th edition.

Also, there are a lot of interrupts in 4E that can be hard to keep track of. 5th does away with this mostly.

Plus, you need to keep track of boni and mali in 4E (-2 to attacks, -3 to Ref etc.) from different powers. In 5th edition you only have advantage and disadvantage mainly.

You could also play 5th edition because it is the most recent edition.

And because they are easy enough to start playing if you have a 4E background anyway.

If you really like the feeling of tactical combat and very balanced classes in 4E with all the options this edition provides and the player's ability to change fluff easily without really having to ask the DM for everything, you should continue playing 4E. There is no new content created for 4E by WotC, but if they should ever get rid of DDI (and that is a big IF IMO) you could use Herolab to make PCs and use the old Adventurer Tools for monsters (I mean the offline version). You will be good to go, since it is so easy to translate stuff from other sources into 4E. This is what I use, I have stopped giving my money to WotC some time ago and still play 4E.
Have fun with any edition you are playing. If you find 5th edition not to your liking, you should play something that is more fun to you instead. If you like 5th, have fun with that. Life is too short to be playing games you do not like.

Regarding 13th Age: I really like this game and much prefer it over 5th edition. If I would have to convince you to play a different edition from 4E, I would tell you to try 13th Age.

Why?
- Combats are quicker (but also a lot less tactical - the feeling of 13th Age combat is rather different from 4E).
- Player empowerment is build into the system, since any player can give tons of flavor to class features without the explicit need to ask the DM (which seems to be something the latest edition of DnD is built on again).
- The rules are simple enough to start play at once.
- And they are available for free:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=13th-Age-SRD
- Backgrounds, Icons and One Unique Thing make for very very interesting story options controlled by the players.
- Also, the mechanics are very transparent with monster stat blocks easy to read, understand and playable without having to reference through the spell section of any PHB (which unfortunately 5th edition reverted back to).

So if you want narrative flexibility a la 4E, shorter combats, lots of story-input for the players built into the system and open and transparent mechanics that make DMing a piece of cake, you should try out 13th Age. Do not expect the tactical nature of 4E combat, though. 4E excels in that area IMO.

Have fun playing!