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

[TrippyHippy]

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.

Everything you describe is precisely the style that doesn’t give me the flexibility to play how I like, or in the manner of the game I grew up with. It’s all just providing ‘builds’ and ‘roles’ and ‘combos’ and ‘system mastery’ and happy zapping. That’s not flexible to other styles of play at all. You say people who criticised haven’t played much 4E - let me ask how much you played other RPGs? What is the range of your roleplaying experiences?

But back to the original point again: 5E still lets you play it this way, as well as other styles too. It’s more inclusive and inherently flexible in it’s goals.

 

[Authweight]

Everything you describe is precisely the style that doesn’t give me the flexibility to play how I like, or in the manner of the game I grew up with. It’s all just providing ‘builds’ and ‘roles’ and ‘combos’ and ‘system mastery’ and happy zapping. That’s not flexible to other styles of play at all. You say people who criticised haven’t played much 4E - let me ask how much you played other RPGs? What is the range of your roleplaying experiences?

I'm not arguing 4e is especially flexible in overall playstyle. It has about the same amount of flexibility there as any game. I'm arguing against the idea that the roles in 4e were rigid and inflexible, a rather different thing. If you understand the system, the roles are closer to guidelines than hard prescriptions on how you must play. I think you read it as a reply to your ongoing argument, but it really wasn't, just more of an aside about something that to me is more interesting.

This isn't really relevant, but since you asked, I've played 3e, 3.5, 4e, pathfinder, 5e, 13th age, Dresden files rpg (built on the fate system), shadowrun, paranoia, several different games at conventions I'd never heard of and don't remember what they were called, several freeform LARP scenarios, several games of my own invention, and I'm sure other things I'm forgetting. I have the original red box, but I haven't had a chance to play it yet. I also own the fate accelerated edition rules booklet, but haven't had a chance to run it yet.

I wasn't even planning on talking about overall playstyle, but as long as you've brought it up...

In terms of playstyle, 4e and 5e are very different, and no amount of optional rules in the DMG really make a difference. 5e is my game of choice right now for various reasons, and I think it's an excellent game, but the design goal of letting you play it 4e style didn't work. That's a good thing, because the same game simply can't do all the good stuff 5e was trying to do and do all the stuff 4e was good at. They don't play nice with each other. 5e is an excellent compilation and logical conclusion to "classic d&d." 4e is all about taking many d&d tropes and reimagining them in a big way. Both are good, but they're going in very different directions in terms of playstyle.

In terms of design, they go in similar directions. Both of them are considerably more mathematically sound than prior editions of the game, both show a degree of subtlety that is lacking in prior editions, and both are designed with clear gameplay goals in mind, rather than just a hodge-podge of "I guess this makes sense." 4e and 5e are among the best designed RPGs I've ever seen, but that design is oriented towards doing extremely different things.

 

[TrippyHippy]

That’s like arguing that chess is flexible because each piece moves differently. When people, e.g. me, say that 4E lacks flexibility they are talking about it’s play style - not the complex levels of it’s ability to mathematically balance character designs.

If “no amount of optional rules in the DMG really make a difference” then we may as well just burn the lot of them, because that is all it is made up of. If you just choose to ignore that fact and say that the game is only going to be played in One True Way, then that is up to you. The options, however, are there still.

 

[Authweight]

That’s like arguing that chess is flexible because each piece moves differently. When people, e.g. me, say that 4E lacks flexibility they are talking about it’s play style - not the complex levels of it’s ability to mathematically balance character designs.

If “no amount of optional rules in the DMG really make a difference” then we may as well just burn the lot of them, because that is all it is made up of. If you just choose to ignore that fact and say that the game is only going to be played in One True Way, then that is up to you. The options, however, are there still.

I'm not trying to convince you that 4e is a magical system that will make you happy if you just understood it better. My initial post was not even in response to you. It was an expansion on the post I quoted, and was aimed at people who were talking about roles in 4e. Ideas like prescriptive vs descriptive, flexible classes vs inflexible classes etc. were being thrown around, and I wanted to talk about it.

If you don't care about class design in 4e, then you don't have to care about that post. That's all it's about. Move along.

Now, since I have been sucked into some sort of weird debate, I will give a last thought on the DMG optional rules: they're awesome. I like them, they're fun, good job designers. What they don't do, however, is let you play a 4e style game in 5e. They let you import certain 4e elements, but it doesn't lead to an actual 4e style. There are limits to what optional rules can and should do, and the designers of 5e were correct in not trying to build optional rules on a scope huge enough to make 5e run like 4e. People who want 4e will just play 4e. 5e is, rightfully, it's own thing. With lots of cool optional rules.

 

[TrippyHippy]

People who want 4e will just play 4e.

Well, I cry amen to that!

 

[SirAntoine]

The 4th Edition fans need to know their edition will be supported, or at least there will be 4e-style powers for all characters made in a future release for 5e.

 

[Iosue]

What they don't do, however, is let you play a 4e style game in 5e.

I have to disagree with this. If what one likes in 4e is the tight design, and the mechanics 4e used to achieve that (AEDU, healing surges, etc.), then no, there are no switches to flip in 5e that will give you that.

However, if what you loved in 4e was a high heroic style of play, with big set-piece battles that offer tactical complexity, with renewable resources that let players keep moving and maintain momentum, then IMO 5e can offer that. Just like for all the other editions, it's a little different in how it creates that kind of play, but it is possible.

 

[dream66_]

If what one likes in 4e is the tight design, and the mechanics 4e used to achieve that (AEDU, healing surges, etc.), then no, there are no switches to flip in 5e that will give you that.

Yep, that's basically what I'm missing. I can do high heroic, in any system and tactical complexity in most.

 

[Sigbjorn_86]

As someone who likes both 4e and 5e, let me give you a few tips about making 5e work for you.

1) Start at level 3. A conscious decision was made during the playtest to strip down 1st and 2nd level characters. While 4e classes play like the archetype right out of the box, many 5e classes have very little, class-wise, to do during combat (and sometimes exploration). Rangers, Paladins, and Fighters especially suffer from this. A common complaint from my 4e fans during combat was, "I can't do anything but attack" (These were players that never felt limited by 4e, and took full advantage of tactics and improvisation. They just miss the at-will powers of 4e).

2) Push your players towards "complex" classes. Battle-master Fighter, Monk, Wizard, Bard, Warlock. Classes like Barbarian and Thief Rogues will feel especially limited to 4e players.

3) Examine spell-options for half-casters and subclasses. Many of the 4e style "powers" were hidden away inside spells. This is why every class but one (Barbarian) has access to some type of spell-casting. Especially for Rangers and Paladins, many of the abilities 4e players will find appealing are now spells (see the Smite spells and Conjure Volley).

4) Change the encounter flow. Throw fewer, harder encounters at players, and give more short-rests. Most classes have at least some abilities that recharge on short-rest. Make the most of HD and short rest healing rules. This will emulate the feel of 4e better. This dovetails with #1, since it's harder to throw more difficult encounters at 1st level players (They lack the both the resources and HP to deal with them).

Even then 5e will not be 4e. It has different design goals. I have several players (my wife included) who only tolerate 5e for the rest of the group. And just for the record, the people who like 5e are all heavy into console video games. It's the players who aren't "gamers" and were new to D&D who liked 4e best.

 

[keterys]

I'd actually recommend starting at 4th level minimum, and preferably 5th level. For many classes, that's the point where they get their first notable spells, second martial attack, and it means everyone starts with a feat so folks can pick up polearm master or whatever to keep things a little more fresh.