As a person who always looks on the bright side, I tend not to give 5e a quick judgement for the moment. But I do feel what you feel.
although I started playing DnD during 3.5, I am not ignorant how vancian system really works and how it should be. But when 4th ED came out, I gave it a try, then I was hooked! These are the reasons why I liked 4e better than 3e.
1. I was so happy with the new way they handled DMing, preparing adventures, and especially monster stats. So much win that it spoiled me. Never will I want to go back looking at another 3.5 monster stat blocks with 'CR' and a dozen wizard spells. I really did not like flipping through the Player's Handbook just for a monster ability. Everything you need for the monster is all there in 4e. No more page flips.
2. I SO LOVE HOW THEY MANAGED TO SUPER-POWER THE PALADIN that it became its own class, unlike 3.5 where it is a pseudo fighter/cleric, not better at both. I also really liked how they oomphed the smites, giving them varieties.
3. I also really liked how they gave Fighters uber cool movie-like signature moves, like Tide of Iron, and Villain's Menace.
4. I really really liked how they rebooted the Sorcerer into a distinctive class, unlike 3.5 which was a Wizard wanna-be. 4e made him feel like a Sorcerer.
5. The combination of specific skills into a broader skill (move silently and hide into Stealth), really made things quicker during skill checks.
6. Solo monsters. REALLY COOL. although it did suffer from flaws if the players stun-locked it. Great DM advices, especially Angry DM's advice on Boss Battles from God of War, really improved Solo battles to higher levels of fun, for the DM.
7. Minions, we just love them. although I houseruled them to be 2-hit KO versions.
8. No more rules when creating normal NPCs like civilian or mayor. You just give them a name, then you are done. No more following the rough guideline in 3.5 to create a commoner class and a noble class.
Things that I wished 4e kept/retained from 3.5 (because I also have good memories with 3.5)
1. Wizard Schools - I'm not sure if 4e really thought of not including them, or they forgot, since that is what they did with Essentials -tried to bring them back. 4e wizard schools are not even complete. They did not include Divination, Transmutation, and others that I forgot. Although I did like the addition of Nethermancy.
2. Cleric domains - in 3.5, domains really mattered to them and gave flavor to cleric who worshipped a particular god. 4e clerics, even with different gods, felt all the same, felt so incomplete. You can't really customize a cleric of Sehanine, god of stealth, into a light armored, stealthy, cleric. You are still stuck with heavy armor because spending points on Dexterity would be a waste, when you can boost your Wisdom with it.
They did the domains in Divine Power, but the effects were too small to notice. Just a bump on your at-wills and a feat cost to learn a channel divinity.
Then comes Essentials with Warpriest, making the pre-Essential cleric obsolete. Nerd rage errupted, me included. That's why WotC responded by giving the classic cleric an update in one of the dragon magazines. But like what, after one year? that's how they listen to us? took very long.
The Essentials cleric's playstyle is it is always tied to a domain. Which is good. But, they only released Sun, Storm, Earth, and Death. Where are the other domains? Why didn't you release a Divine Power 2 to list all of the domains? So I can't really worship Bahamut this way since the four listed above are not his domains.
3. Multiclassing sucks. 3.5 had a cleaner way of doing it. Why can my 4e Rogue/Fighter/Wizard not pick powers from each class source every level-up? Why do i have to spend a feat just to swap a fighter power with a rogue power, when I could have used the feat for a better option?
Although, when Hybrid rules was released. I just said, 'at least they have this'.
4. THEY DID NOT RELEASE THE MONK, BARBARIAN, BARD, SORCERER, AND DRUID. They were a core class, why the sudden change? My player who was always playing a barbarian since 3.5, was so shocked when they took it away from PHB1. We had to wait for a year, WE HAD TO WAIT FOR A YEAR before the barbarian was released.
5. I missed the concept of Prestige Classes. I prefered Prestige Classes over Paragon Paths in 4e. I miss how you carefully plan your character to take the requirements and then finally enter the Prestige Class. It's like a pilgrimage or a goal set, which can be satisfying. Plus, PrC differs in level requirements. SOme can be taken level 8, while some as early as level 4. In 4e, you had to wait 10 grueling levels before you had a taste of it, with the fact that I rarely run adventures past level 10.
6. I somehow missed the Save or Die rule. Although bad if every monster has it. It brought the thought that death is actually easy if you are not quick enough, smart enough, or lucky enough. THis is really good if used sparingly.
7. I also missed the Two-weapon fighting mechanic in 3.5. 4e only gave the Ranger, Barbarian, and the Fighter this mechanic. Other classes doesn't have it. What if I want to become a dual katar Rogue like in the video games, or a hammer-and-axe paladin? Why can't I do this in 4e? It's a very viable class concept.
Things that I wished 4e would fix
1. Higher level game play math is scary. That's the reason I hesitate to run an epic game with my players, even though they've been scratching their ears so bad to play one. Let alone paragon levels.
2. Slugfest combat. Everyone knows it.
3. Useless feat bloats, and feat taxes. Everyone knows it.
4. 4e is so hard to do combat using your imagination only. You must use a grid board. I tried doing gridless combat using SARNFU, it strongly works in 3D combat, like underwater and in air. But with land, it's hard due to the nature of powers having effects like Defender's marks, slides, and etc.
5. Multiclassing
6. Although the characters are more awesome with all the power options. It's not too friendly for those who haven't played DnD at all to learn. Although, I might be wrong with this. But I liked how Essentials simplified the game for real beginners.
7. Beast Master Rangers, which is my favorite since I had a dwarf bolter with a pet boar back in 3.5, actually sucks in 4e.
8. The Assassin. They just suck. period. I feel sorry for its fluff background story, since it was really cool.
9. The Avenger. All they can do is wield a big weapon. Why can't I wield a great bow instead and focus on long ranged accurate attacks instead?
Why can't I also wield two-weapons, like dual scimitars? This is really a nice concept too, like a religious arabic zealot dervish.
10. Fighters are proficient with military ranged weapons (bows), BUT WHY CAN'T I FIND A SINGLE POWER THAT USES A BOW OR CROSSBOW???? Is it because the 'defender' role must be locked into melee? I thought the game allows us to soar with our imaginations, but this doesn't do that.
In lieu, with the fighter bow concept, why can't my Paladin, or should I say, the other defenders, have long ranged option?
They pretty much did this and it was awesome for the Warlord. although it is a Leader class, but using Strength for bows was possible for this class, why not with Fighters or Paladins as well?
This is a pretty strong advantage with Pathfinder against 4e. Fighters, Paladins, and the melee oriented classes have viable and strong options to become archers or crossbowmen. Their class abilities can also be interchangeable to work with long range weapons (try to read how they did this with the Paladin's smite. It was a solid rule).
So I hope WotC will put down their pride, assuming they won't ever borrow from Pathfinder, and adapt this concept.
Things that I liked/did not like about Essentials
1. I liked how they made fighter's with easier marking mechanics through the defender's aura.
But I really did not like it when I learned that Essential fighter stances CANNOT be traded with 4e fighter at-wills.
2. I liked the Mage for bringing back schools, But DID NOT like for making the 4e wizard obsolete, plus they did not even update the 4e wizard to have Magic Missile for free, while the Mage and Bladesinger has it automatically.
3. Same feeling with Rogue tricks not interchangeable with 4e rogue at-wills.
4. weapon expertise is much cooler.
5. I think the Cavalier Paladin's defender aura should have been the 4e classic paladin's marking mechanic in the first place. We were educated through the computer games and 3.5 that paladins were also famous for their different types of auras, e.g. diablo and WoW.
Thing that DND never perfected, while Pathfinder hit it right in the kisser:
Mage-warriors
3.5 had Spellsword, Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Hexblade, Duskblade (seriously?)
4e had Swordmage, Bladesinger, and Hexblade
All of these boils down to one class concept, a mage-warrior. Why so many classes for a single concept? Why can't they stick to one only, and then use the variants as builds or archetypes for the class.
Let's look at Pathfinder's Magus class. Their only mage-warrior concept. It has different archetypes found in their splatbooks, and class abilities are interchangeable. Which is a good one for me. That's why they dont' have class bloats. THis is also applicable to pathfinder's ninja class which is an alternative class to rogue, samurai an alternative class to cavaliers. WOTC, see what Paizo did there? thats how you manage class bloat.
Wishes for 5e about spellcasting
1. Vancian is ONLY best for Wizards. That's how wizards became famous for.
2. I like their new approach to Cleric's pseudo Vancian spellcasting. Unique.
3. Sorcerers and Warlocks and those spellcasters who are innate a.k.a. who doesn't need to study magic, should or can use the Power system of 4e. THe 4e sorcerer felt really at home with its current state.
I dont know about Warlocks though, not really a fan of them, but still, they should feel different from the wizard's vancian and the sorcerer's 4e Power system ( i hope)
4. With the current playtest, you mean to say Druids will become Divine again. I'm crying right now, not really, but you get my point. 4e nailed the Primal magic source right in the kisser. They made them, their own. Not some cleric-wannabees.
I want to see a unique approach to primal spellcasting, not vancian, even not power system (since i already wanted it for the sorcerer). Hope they can pull it off, like what they did with the cleric.
Thanks for taking the time to read this very long post.
although I started playing DnD during 3.5, I am not ignorant how vancian system really works and how it should be. But when 4th ED came out, I gave it a try, then I was hooked! These are the reasons why I liked 4e better than 3e.
1. I was so happy with the new way they handled DMing, preparing adventures, and especially monster stats. So much win that it spoiled me. Never will I want to go back looking at another 3.5 monster stat blocks with 'CR' and a dozen wizard spells. I really did not like flipping through the Player's Handbook just for a monster ability. Everything you need for the monster is all there in 4e. No more page flips.
2. I SO LOVE HOW THEY MANAGED TO SUPER-POWER THE PALADIN that it became its own class, unlike 3.5 where it is a pseudo fighter/cleric, not better at both. I also really liked how they oomphed the smites, giving them varieties.
3. I also really liked how they gave Fighters uber cool movie-like signature moves, like Tide of Iron, and Villain's Menace.
4. I really really liked how they rebooted the Sorcerer into a distinctive class, unlike 3.5 which was a Wizard wanna-be. 4e made him feel like a Sorcerer.
5. The combination of specific skills into a broader skill (move silently and hide into Stealth), really made things quicker during skill checks.
6. Solo monsters. REALLY COOL. although it did suffer from flaws if the players stun-locked it. Great DM advices, especially Angry DM's advice on Boss Battles from God of War, really improved Solo battles to higher levels of fun, for the DM.
7. Minions, we just love them. although I houseruled them to be 2-hit KO versions.
8. No more rules when creating normal NPCs like civilian or mayor. You just give them a name, then you are done. No more following the rough guideline in 3.5 to create a commoner class and a noble class.
Things that I wished 4e kept/retained from 3.5 (because I also have good memories with 3.5)
1. Wizard Schools - I'm not sure if 4e really thought of not including them, or they forgot, since that is what they did with Essentials -tried to bring them back. 4e wizard schools are not even complete. They did not include Divination, Transmutation, and others that I forgot. Although I did like the addition of Nethermancy.
2. Cleric domains - in 3.5, domains really mattered to them and gave flavor to cleric who worshipped a particular god. 4e clerics, even with different gods, felt all the same, felt so incomplete. You can't really customize a cleric of Sehanine, god of stealth, into a light armored, stealthy, cleric. You are still stuck with heavy armor because spending points on Dexterity would be a waste, when you can boost your Wisdom with it.
They did the domains in Divine Power, but the effects were too small to notice. Just a bump on your at-wills and a feat cost to learn a channel divinity.
Then comes Essentials with Warpriest, making the pre-Essential cleric obsolete. Nerd rage errupted, me included. That's why WotC responded by giving the classic cleric an update in one of the dragon magazines. But like what, after one year? that's how they listen to us? took very long.
The Essentials cleric's playstyle is it is always tied to a domain. Which is good. But, they only released Sun, Storm, Earth, and Death. Where are the other domains? Why didn't you release a Divine Power 2 to list all of the domains? So I can't really worship Bahamut this way since the four listed above are not his domains.
3. Multiclassing sucks. 3.5 had a cleaner way of doing it. Why can my 4e Rogue/Fighter/Wizard not pick powers from each class source every level-up? Why do i have to spend a feat just to swap a fighter power with a rogue power, when I could have used the feat for a better option?
Although, when Hybrid rules was released. I just said, 'at least they have this'.
4. THEY DID NOT RELEASE THE MONK, BARBARIAN, BARD, SORCERER, AND DRUID. They were a core class, why the sudden change? My player who was always playing a barbarian since 3.5, was so shocked when they took it away from PHB1. We had to wait for a year, WE HAD TO WAIT FOR A YEAR before the barbarian was released.
5. I missed the concept of Prestige Classes. I prefered Prestige Classes over Paragon Paths in 4e. I miss how you carefully plan your character to take the requirements and then finally enter the Prestige Class. It's like a pilgrimage or a goal set, which can be satisfying. Plus, PrC differs in level requirements. SOme can be taken level 8, while some as early as level 4. In 4e, you had to wait 10 grueling levels before you had a taste of it, with the fact that I rarely run adventures past level 10.
6. I somehow missed the Save or Die rule. Although bad if every monster has it. It brought the thought that death is actually easy if you are not quick enough, smart enough, or lucky enough. THis is really good if used sparingly.
7. I also missed the Two-weapon fighting mechanic in 3.5. 4e only gave the Ranger, Barbarian, and the Fighter this mechanic. Other classes doesn't have it. What if I want to become a dual katar Rogue like in the video games, or a hammer-and-axe paladin? Why can't I do this in 4e? It's a very viable class concept.
Things that I wished 4e would fix
1. Higher level game play math is scary. That's the reason I hesitate to run an epic game with my players, even though they've been scratching their ears so bad to play one. Let alone paragon levels.
2. Slugfest combat. Everyone knows it.
3. Useless feat bloats, and feat taxes. Everyone knows it.
4. 4e is so hard to do combat using your imagination only. You must use a grid board. I tried doing gridless combat using SARNFU, it strongly works in 3D combat, like underwater and in air. But with land, it's hard due to the nature of powers having effects like Defender's marks, slides, and etc.
5. Multiclassing
6. Although the characters are more awesome with all the power options. It's not too friendly for those who haven't played DnD at all to learn. Although, I might be wrong with this. But I liked how Essentials simplified the game for real beginners.
7. Beast Master Rangers, which is my favorite since I had a dwarf bolter with a pet boar back in 3.5, actually sucks in 4e.
8. The Assassin. They just suck. period. I feel sorry for its fluff background story, since it was really cool.
9. The Avenger. All they can do is wield a big weapon. Why can't I wield a great bow instead and focus on long ranged accurate attacks instead?
Why can't I also wield two-weapons, like dual scimitars? This is really a nice concept too, like a religious arabic zealot dervish.
10. Fighters are proficient with military ranged weapons (bows), BUT WHY CAN'T I FIND A SINGLE POWER THAT USES A BOW OR CROSSBOW???? Is it because the 'defender' role must be locked into melee? I thought the game allows us to soar with our imaginations, but this doesn't do that.
In lieu, with the fighter bow concept, why can't my Paladin, or should I say, the other defenders, have long ranged option?
They pretty much did this and it was awesome for the Warlord. although it is a Leader class, but using Strength for bows was possible for this class, why not with Fighters or Paladins as well?
This is a pretty strong advantage with Pathfinder against 4e. Fighters, Paladins, and the melee oriented classes have viable and strong options to become archers or crossbowmen. Their class abilities can also be interchangeable to work with long range weapons (try to read how they did this with the Paladin's smite. It was a solid rule).
So I hope WotC will put down their pride, assuming they won't ever borrow from Pathfinder, and adapt this concept.
Things that I liked/did not like about Essentials
1. I liked how they made fighter's with easier marking mechanics through the defender's aura.
But I really did not like it when I learned that Essential fighter stances CANNOT be traded with 4e fighter at-wills.
2. I liked the Mage for bringing back schools, But DID NOT like for making the 4e wizard obsolete, plus they did not even update the 4e wizard to have Magic Missile for free, while the Mage and Bladesinger has it automatically.
3. Same feeling with Rogue tricks not interchangeable with 4e rogue at-wills.
4. weapon expertise is much cooler.
5. I think the Cavalier Paladin's defender aura should have been the 4e classic paladin's marking mechanic in the first place. We were educated through the computer games and 3.5 that paladins were also famous for their different types of auras, e.g. diablo and WoW.
Thing that DND never perfected, while Pathfinder hit it right in the kisser:
Mage-warriors
3.5 had Spellsword, Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Hexblade, Duskblade (seriously?)
4e had Swordmage, Bladesinger, and Hexblade
All of these boils down to one class concept, a mage-warrior. Why so many classes for a single concept? Why can't they stick to one only, and then use the variants as builds or archetypes for the class.
Let's look at Pathfinder's Magus class. Their only mage-warrior concept. It has different archetypes found in their splatbooks, and class abilities are interchangeable. Which is a good one for me. That's why they dont' have class bloats. THis is also applicable to pathfinder's ninja class which is an alternative class to rogue, samurai an alternative class to cavaliers. WOTC, see what Paizo did there? thats how you manage class bloat.
Wishes for 5e about spellcasting
1. Vancian is ONLY best for Wizards. That's how wizards became famous for.
2. I like their new approach to Cleric's pseudo Vancian spellcasting. Unique.
3. Sorcerers and Warlocks and those spellcasters who are innate a.k.a. who doesn't need to study magic, should or can use the Power system of 4e. THe 4e sorcerer felt really at home with its current state.
I dont know about Warlocks though, not really a fan of them, but still, they should feel different from the wizard's vancian and the sorcerer's 4e Power system ( i hope)
4. With the current playtest, you mean to say Druids will become Divine again. I'm crying right now, not really, but you get my point. 4e nailed the Primal magic source right in the kisser. They made them, their own. Not some cleric-wannabees.
I want to see a unique approach to primal spellcasting, not vancian, even not power system (since i already wanted it for the sorcerer). Hope they can pull it off, like what they did with the cleric.
Thanks for taking the time to read this very long post.
Last edited:
I also wouldn't mind some "sneaky" minions or other creative variations - minions that technically have many hitpoints and don't die after a hit, but that decide to flee as soon as they're hit. Or a group of minions with a shared pool of hitpoints that all decide to run when the hitpoint threshold is reached, etc.
