D&D 4E 4e players, why do you want 5e?

Obryn

Hero
In short? I'm not sure I want 5e.

My favorite editions right now - and favorite two RPGs, in fact - are 4e and 1e. Each fills in gaps that the other one is lacking in.

So right now - as I did with many a retro-style game - I am asking myself, "Would I rather play this than 1e or 4e? What does this game offer that 1e and 4e don't? Can it really provide both experiences at once?"

Right now, I don't see it. I appreciate that WotC's trying to accommodate all play styles, but frankly, it looks like it's ended up at a half-step compromise. I have no need for a half-step.

-O
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Fobok

First Post
Right now, I don't see it. I appreciate that WotC's trying to accommodate all play styles, but frankly, it looks like it's ended up at a half-step compromise. I have no need for a half-step.

Actually, the 'accommodate all play styles' part comes when we get access to rule modules. (Or so they say.) Right now, this playtest is just the basic module-free rules.
 

Jack99

Adventurer
I'll keep my answer short.

I love 1e/2e however it has always felt like an incomplete game.

I loathe 3e and feel as if it's too codified and rigid and rules heavy.

I like 4e but feel as if it misses the mark on a few things where 1e/2e excelled.

So for me, a blending of 1e/2e and 4e would be the perfect game.

Thats me, if you switch the like and love around. Either way, I want to play 5e because I still think it has the potential to be a better fit than 4e. For me, its not about an edition having certain rules. There are no dealbreakers, except for the WHOLE game being a worse fit for me.
 

Valetudo

Adventurer
If there is one thing I really didnt like in4th ed
was the multiclassing. It was a total after thought. And it made you have a subsciption for alot of the classes to even multiclass.
 


shamsael

First Post
I start this thread with no trollishness or malice, but after reading a thread in which one poster was lamenting the return of save-or-dies and Vancian casting, I have to ask: why are 4e players so interested in 5e?

As far as I can tell, 4e D&D diverged significantly from previous editions of D&D, in essence putting the game on an easier difficulty setting. (No snark intended.) Gone was the resource management and brutally unforgiving combat of earlier editions, instead replaced by balanced encounters. There are a whole host of changes to the game that 4e players generally see as positive that are a drastic move away from traditional D&D.

Hit point mechanics. The introduction of healing surges and overnight healing negated the resource management aspect of HP. With players able to heal themselves (in combat, of all things) and a large pool of "reserve HP" to draw from, it was the expectation that the PCs would start their combats at full health. This greatly contrasted with previous editions where players were expected to manage their HP and healing over the course of an adventure (ignoring the 3e wands of cure light wounds nonsense).

On top of this, the introduction of "easy healing"--minor action ranged healing that did not consume resources outside of the combat encounter and healing that triggered off another action (such as an attack)--exacerbated the divergence of healing mechanics until they no longer resembled traditional HP models.

AEDU power structure. Prior editions of D&D did not have a power structure at all. There were classes, some of which cast spells, some of which received sort-of spells (such as a paladin's remove disease), some that received skills (such as a thief's hide in shadows), and some that received passive bonuses. It was, in essence, a messy system. (And if you go back far enough, there weren't skills at all!) 3e attempted to remedy this by giving everyone skills and allowing them to access feats (some of which granted passive bonuses, some of which modified actions, and some of which offered new actions).

It was still a mess. A imbalanced mechanical nightmare of a mess, but, at the same time, a lovely, wonderful mess of which I have fond memories.

4e took that mess and streamlined it significantly, for better and for worse. Rather than having some players with "powers" (such as spells or smite evil) and those without, 4e gave everyone powers, and the developers made sure that everyone had about the same amount. They also tried to eliminate the fifteen-minute workday by giving everyone renewable powers--no more forcing the fighter and rogue to rest after one fight because the wizard and cleric cast all their spells.

This was a complete departure from prior editions. It had its benefits, of course, but it was a completely different beast.

Non-Vancian Spellcasting. This ties in with the above. Some people love Vancian spellcasting, some people hate it. D&D, however, has always had Vancian spellcasting. There were problems with it; balance issues cropped up because spellcasters were potent at the beginning of the day and their power waned as they expended their high-level spell slots and were forced to rely on weaker and weaker spells (and eventually their crossbows). 4e attempted to remedy this by leveling out the power curve. Once a spellcaster (or, indeed, any other class) expended their daily resources, they were weaker, but not without power, as they had backup spells at their disposal: at-will powers and encounter abilities.

Coupled with this was the drastic reduction in spellcasting power. While spellcasters needed to be powered down in 3e--as certain designers removed the limitations of spellcasting in previous editions and drastically increased their power and versatility--4e did this by ripping the guts out of the Vancian spellcasting system, as noted above.

No save or lose effects. They exist in the most technical sense possible. Usually, you must fail several consecutive saving throws to die, which puts the odds firmly against the effect sticking. Compounding this are the plethora of effects that allow you to make a saving throw to throw off said effects. Certain builds (orb of imposition wizard) could stack huge penalties to saving throws and stunlock monsters, but the danger of a medusa's gaze was, shall we say, neutered from previous editions.

Treasure parcels. Depending on the edition of D&D that you are playing, the treasure gods have a significant impact on your character's power. In pre-3e, you rolled for treasure all the time. In 3e, you rolled for treasure but could have a spellcaster craft your magic items if you really wanted that +3 sword. In 4e, you give the DM a wishlist and, if you didn't like what he gave you, you could break down magic items and convert them to what you really wanted in a short period of time.

Long gone were the days of gambling on the loot tables and getting something you didn't want. You had only to ask and you would receive. Everything was precisely configured to give you want you wanted, when you wanted.

That last sentence summarizes 4e versus prior editions of D&D: you get what you want. And for the 4e players, 4e does what they want. It gets rid of the pesky D&D tropes that bothered their games. No more cleric healbots. No more sitting in a swamp for three days waiting to heal. No more wizards running out of spells. No instant death. Heck, no alignment restrictions or paladins falling or clerics losing their spells.

It seems that 4e is everything that 4e players wanted. On the other hand, 3e was not everything that I wanted. 3e was a mess that I would like to see simplified and clarified. Thus, my edition of choice needs revising beyond what Pathfinder offers. I am invested in 5e because 3e wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Thus, it seems that 4e must not have been what 4e players want, or else they wouldn't be invested in 5e. So my question to you, 4e players, is what you didn't like with 4e that you hope to see in 5e?

4e did one very specific thing very very well. For what 4e is, it is without peer.

Unfortunately, in perfecting itself as the balanced tactical adventure game, 4e let go of a lot of what makes D&D great.

On some level, 5e will never replace 4e. But on many other levels, I neither expect nor want it to.

I want 5e for completely different reasons. I want 5e to bring forward the things I loved about RC and 2e and polish them for the new millenium.
 

Kzach

Banned
Banned
After now going through a playtest I think I could definitely see myself playing 4e again. My only problem with that would be that I'd need to have a fully functional, non-paid for version of the Character Builder and Compendium, preferably offline. And I'm guessing that once 5e is announced, there will be no option for that (other than illegal).

4e is a good game, IMO, and it delivers on some things in some ways that I don't think 5e will be able to accomplish. Having said that, if things keep going the way I envisage, then I'd still make 5e my preferred game, I'd just be willing to put it aside every now and then and pick up 4e for a change of pace.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
I am not a 4e player, but these are my feelings about why some 4e players may want to switch to 5e... it all depends why they switched to 4e.

- 4e was not just a fix to 3e, fixing problems was only part of the design goals, another major purpose was to provide something new and refreshing. Some people really wanted to try D&D with a spin, maybe because they had become a bit bored with 3e, hence they were happy to switch to 4e. But now switching to 5e means another spin, so if this was their main motivation, why not switching again after all?

- 4e fixed some problems, but this doesn't mean that people who were happy with the fixes liked everything else of 4e, maybe other problems weren't fixed or new problems were created or some D&D feeling was lost, and 5e promises to be naturally customizable and to actually provide variants directly, making it possible to inherit features from several previous editions so that every group can have all it wants more easily than before

- some gamers approach D&D in a more social/public way than others, meaning that they're very much into club/shop gaming, conventions, reading articles etc., all of which are naturally inclined to be based on the current edition, so they'll just switch because playing an older edition doesn't satisfy them at this level

- last but not least there is always the newcomers, not strictly 4e gamers but those who would be if they start before 5e, simply because newcomers (unless they are invited to the game and thus a specific edition by an older grognard) cannot pick an edition as favorite before knowing quite a lot about the game, they'll pick the current
 

Rhoan01ZBT

First Post
So my question to you, 4e players, is what you didn't like with 4e that you hope to see in 5e?

Let me respond with a little background:

I played 3E since its release, and it was the first D&D edition I ever bought into. I switched to 4E because it fixed lots of things I didn't like about 3E: characters had actual honest-to-Pelor hit points at first level, and the powers gave everyone cool things they could do all the time.

The reason I'm playtesting D&D Next isn't because of things I don't like in 4E, it's because of the people I play 4E with currently. I run a game with my wife and her fellow PhD students from the local university, several of whom have never played D&D (or any pnp RPGs) before in their lives. When they take their turns, they often stare in confusion at the character sheets and can take five or even ten minutes to make a decision and complete their turn, usually including prompts or tips from myself or other veteran gamers in the group. There are several reasons for this: the characters' multiple powers and options overwhelm them, the individual steps required to complete each power confuse them, and they often resort to the simplest action or one they've done before and are familiar with in order to move on from their turn. They're having fun being part of the group and playing with us, but I know it can be frustrating for them.

I like having all of 4E's powers and options, as do the veteran gamers in the group. I think the new players would be happier with simpler characters, but hacking something together is too time-consuming for me. D&D Next, based on its stated design goals, could be the solution: more complicated characters for those who prefer that, and simpler characters for those who are new or don't like having all those options.

What I've seen in the playtest is a start, but I need to see more.
 

jbear

First Post
Short answer: Not looking for anything. Not closed to anything.

I like playing games. I like learning new ones.

I love the tactical nature of 4e combat and I find the system so smooth and solid that I can tinker with it, adjust it and improvise with it to my hearts content.

I played a small part of the play test tonight and enjoyed myself. But I will say that though I like being able to have combats that literally last a few minutes, I will want, need and expect there to be a fully tactical combat module included in the game fairly shortly after release or even with the core rules as an option right off the bat.

Otherwise I would sorely miss that aspect of the game.
 

Remove ads

Top