D&D 4E What 5E needs to learn from 4E

[Tony Vargas]

Giving people a set of choices is in a way limiting their choices because they'll tend to default to those choices. If you offer someone Coke or Pepsi, chances are that he's not going to ask for lemonade. Likewise, the stunting system is still largely DM fiat. In the encounters game, I considered running behind the bar, splashing ale around, and having the wizard light it aflame. Then I realized that I'd probably have to spend two turns doing that and make some kind of skill check, and I used Cleave instead.

In retrospect, I wish I had lit the bar on fire anyway.

To put that particular stunt in perspective, though, I'd say it's a good thing you decided to Cleave. Because ale doesn't burn. Even distilled liquors don't burn that well. Heck, even the lamp oil typically used as a classic D&D incendiary doesn't burn that nicely on it's own, it needs something act as a wick (like enemies' clothes or fur, fortunately). (Now, another DM may decide that fantasy ale burns like gasoline - but that's just another reason that leaning too heavily on adjudication is a poor design policy.)

The flip side of the point you're making is that lack of worthwhile/interesting options may well encourage players to 'stunt' when the stunt is likely to be pretty worthless, itself, just because the game sucks so hard it's not worth playing their character as modeled in the rules. You're counting on the DM to feel sorry for you because you played a character with inadequate mechanical support and thus let you do things that probably wouldn't really work just so you can eke some kind of enjoyment out of his game.

It's not a fun position to be in as a DM, having some players with an embarrassment of effective options (20 spells to choose from, or even 4 cantrips & 3 1st & a crossbow, at 1st level) and others bored to tears, looking for some way to contribute, or at least act out in a way that reminds everyone they are playing a character, not just going 'ooh' and 'aah' at the arcane fireworks.

 

[timASW]

You've just missed the point several times over. It's not the individual parts of the terrain that are difficult to stat - your stats are functionally equivalent to the 4e version and only look simpler to you because you're used to the jargon.

The difference is in the stunting. In how the terrain is used. In 3.X statting that room up is a largely wasted effort. In 4e it really isn't (although it is probably overkill).

Take the firepit. It's a large area that's on fire. It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to step into that firepit willingly. Why would they? It's a firepit. It's gonna hurt them. So the relevance of the firepit is determined by how easy it is to push someone in - otherwise it's just a square people aren't going to walk through.

In 3.X it's not worth bull rushing someone in - you have to give up your attack to do it and unless you have Improved Bull Rush they get a free swing. Especially as they are just going to take a 5' step out of the firepit next time. There are a few feats (e.g. Pathfinder's Shield Slam) and a few spells (e.g. Gust of Wind) that can help force people into the fire pit. But these are both very rare (and note that Gust of Wind won't even force small non-fliers in). You might as well place a rope round the area of a firepit and say "No one cross this" for all the game impact it's going to have most of the time.

In 4e on the other hand I'd estimate at least half of all PCs have some sort of forced movement. The sword and board fighter probably has Tide of Iron - an at will attack that allows them to attack and drive the enemy back five feet as well as make a decent attack. The wizard probably has Freezing Burst or Thunderwave as an At Will, both of which affect a 15 foot by 15 foot area and move anyone they hit (or possibly even Beguiling Strands). The archer ranger (Hunter) can not only easily slide people into the firepit, but can use another arrow to pin them there until the escape or knock them over. And these are just a small sample of At Will abilities. If the PCs play well, any monster who starts within ten feet of the firepit may go in. (The monsters can, of course, do this right back to the PCs). The firepit instantly becomes a defining feature of the battle rather than just something that's there.

Your chandelier falling is singularly pointless IMO. The person underneath it is going to get a reflex save (or is it really autohit?). And it does very little damage - 2d8 is only about comparable to a first level PC with a sword - meaning that fighter, rogue, and probably even the cleric are better off Just Hitting Soemthing. Which means that the candelabra is dropped by a wizard simply because he doesn't want to waste a spell and isn't good with weapons. Great incentive to stunt there.

The 4e chandelier on the other hand does a lot more damage becuase bringing down a chandelier should be the highlight of the night not something the wizard does because he's bored of making crossbow attacks. It uses the Limited Use table rather than an attempts to model it by physical impact, making it worthwhile for anyone rather than just the wizard. And because everyone knows it's worth it and can guess where the chandelier's going to hit, people are going to use forced movement to get people under the chandelier, making for even more of an epic crash.

For both those reasons, and for more (such as the full round attacks in 3.X as against standard attacks and increased movement on certain actions in addition to your normal move) stunting works much, much better in 4e than 3.X. You have the incentives to stunt, you have the ability to set people up for stunts, and you have the mobility.

In my example there were 3 RULES, to remember. How to catch on fire, how to put out fire and what damage dice to roll. And no the chandelier does not need a to-hit roll. Its an area affect.

Yours needs on the other hand to remember different amounts of damage for each target of the effect, different powers for each possible character to move the opponent, Powers to possibly pin the opponent, You need to check an effects table for christs sake.....

3 rules in 3e versus a the movement chapter, the stunts section, a dozen different powers AND a special effects chart for christs sake..... its not even close. 4e's is way, way more complicated.

And more then that, all the things you mentioned as good are most of the PROBLEM with the 4e system. PC's shouldnt be able to just toss everyone around willing nilly against their will.

Throwing someone at a bonfire shouldnt be a more optimal choice then hitting them with a sword. A brief contact like that and your talking about mainly 2nd degree burns and only a very small amount of 3rd degree. Stabbing them or hitting them in head with a hammer is Far, Far, more lethal then falling into what is essentially a campfire for a few seconds.

The lethality of a chandelier varies and should certainly do a potentially lethal amount of damage to a regular mook it by no means compares to being hit with an actual weapon.

 

[timASW]

I forget exactly where the table is that determines how much damage something does based on its weight and how far it falls. How much do you estimate the chandelier to be? If I remember correctly, it must be at least 200 pounds to deal 1d6 damage falling 10'. (Is the attack roll/save DC there as well? Ah, no, it just hits or something. Odd.)

Near the falling rules. I added a bit of damage for spikeyness, I imagined a very gothic chandelier with his description. And they seem spikey to me.

*

I'm not sure that's simpler than either giving the fires a level or using the PC's level and basing damage/attacks off of that. I know 3E well but I'd still be flipping through books to figure out how it's supposed to work. (Or just ignore the rules and then wonder why I don't play a game where the rules are set up so you don't have to ignore them.)

Its called in INDEX. They are quite helpful when your searching for something in a book. Although fire damage comes up often enough that it seems odd not to have at least the basics memorized.

I was playing 3.5 last Thursday and one player - playing his third RPG session ever - decided to take off his breastplate and hit a ghoul in the face to stun him. I was really tired of telling him "No, you can't do that," so I let it happen even though he didn't have the feats for it. In 4E I'd just say "Okay, STR vs. Fort, on a hit you deal low regular damage plus he's Dazed."

Nothing in 3X says you cant do that. You dont need any feats either. Its an attack with an improvised weapon -4 to hit.

And STR versus Fort is stupid. Why wouldnt you just attack his armor class like normal. Its not a special attack, he was just using a non aero-dynamic metal club....

Oh right, because 4e needs to overcomplicate everything it touches. NVM.

 

[LostSoul]

Its called in INDEX. They are quite helpful when your searching for something in a book. Although fire damage comes up often enough that it seems odd not to have at least the basics memorized.

Even so, you still have to grab the book, flip to the index, find the entry, flip to the page, find the entry, and parse it. It's easier to use the basic action resolution system (stat + 1/2 level vs. defence) or turn to a bookmarked page (42 in the DMG).

Things catching on fire rarely comes up - most spells don't cause it. The only thing I can think of is alchemist's fire or standing in fire, but that rarely happens in the games I've played.

Nothing in 3X says you cant do that. You dont need any feats either. Its an attack with an improvised weapon -4 to hit.

And STR versus Fort is stupid. Why wouldnt you just attack his armor class like normal. Its not a special attack, he was just using a non aero-dynamic metal club....

Oh right, because 4e needs to overcomplicate everything it touches. NVM.

Nothing in 3E says you can't, that's true. Still, I'm a little more wary about allowing such improvised actions in 3E because what your PC can do seems - to me - to be much more strictly defined.

I used vs. Fort because you're trying to knock them out, not trying to penetrate AC - a guy with a steel helm on can still have his bell rung, and the target's fortitude seems to be the most important factor here. (Against a quick monster, maybe Ref would be the most important factor.) It's not perfect but easy enough to use.

I don't really get why saying "Okay, well, it's an attack roll with an improvised weapon - so that's STR + BAB -4 against his AC. You hit? Okay, now the save DC is 10 + 1/2 your level + what, your Con modifier? What is that? Okay, now let me roll his Fortitude Save..." is more complicated than "Str + 1/2 level vs. Fort Defence".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In my example there were 3 RULES, to remember. How to catch on fire, how to put out fire and what damage dice to roll. And no the chandelier does not need a to-hit roll. Its an area affect.

Yours needs on the other hand to remember different amounts of damage for each target of the effect, different powers for each possible character to move the opponent, Powers to possibly pin the opponent, You need to check an effects table for christs sake.....

3 rules in 3e versus a the movement chapter, the stunts section, a dozen different powers AND a special effects chart for christs sake..... its not even close. 4e's is way, way more complicated.

And more then that, all the things you mentioned as good are most of the PROBLEM with the 4e system. PC's shouldnt be able to just toss everyone around willing nilly against their will.

Throwing someone at a bonfire shouldnt be a more optimal choice then hitting them with a sword. A brief contact like that and your talking about mainly 2nd degree burns and only a very small amount of 3rd degree. Stabbing them or hitting them in head with a hammer is Far, Far, more lethal then falling into what is essentially a campfire for a few seconds.

The lethality of a chandelier varies and should certainly do a potentially lethal amount of damage to a regular mook it by no means compares to being hit with an actual weapon.

This is exaggeration. PCs will be using their powers, the movement rules, etc all the time, so those things cannot be attached to the rules cost of a specific scenario. It would be just like insisting that we bring in the entire complexity of the equivalent 3e subsystems, possible spells that might be used, items, etc. The 4e rules are far more regular and structured in a way that is simple to remember and apply as well, trust me they're a LOT less obtuse than 3.5 ever dreamed of being.

What 4e brings to the table here is a way of quickly and easily assessing improvised moves (on one page of the DMG, very easy to look up and use) and a list of about a dozen conditions, and the action economy/turn structure. The resulting system when used in play is VERY easy to adjudicate. On top of that there is a whole terrain powers concept that lets you easily bake the most likely stuff into the scenario ahead of time, which is especially effective for things like modules where someone else will likely run it.

It isn't any ONE thing about 4e that makes it work so well. It is the incremental effect of their strict adherence to a structured system with very simple straightforward and usually minimalistic core elements like keywords, damage types, and conditions. Any time you run into anything in 4e it works very similarly mechanics-wise to doing another thing in a different situation. It just makes things fast and easy. The players are very rarely confused by it and the logic is highly transparent. Even without talking to the DM most reasonably experienced players can make a solid guess as to what the effect of dropping a chandelier or rolling logs down a hill, or whatever is likely to have.

 

[timASW]

Even so, you still have to grab the book, flip to the index, find the entry, flip to the page, find the entry, and parse it. It's easier to use the basic action resolution system (stat + 1/2 level vs. defence) or turn to a bookmarked page (42 in the DMG).

Bookmarks didnt work on your 3X books? How odd.......
And no, remember one rule or remember one rule. Equally easy except that I dont have to stop to do a math equation every time. Just roll a D6.

Things catching on fire rarely comes up - most spells don't cause it. The only thing I can think of is alchemist's fire or standing in fire, but that rarely happens in the games I've played..

Every single fire spell, item or effect can cause it unless specifically stated otherwise in its description. If someone was running 3X where fire couldnt make umm more fire... then the flaw was in the operator, not the rules.

Your shouldnt need a rule for common sense.

Nothing in 3E says you can't, that's true. Still, I'm a little more wary about allowing such improvised actions in 3E because what your PC can do seems - to me - to be much more strictly defined.

Again a problem with the operator not the rules. If you were specifically looking in the rules for what you CAN do then you were doing it backwards. The rules existed to tell you most of what you COULDNT do.

It was not a design goal of earlier editions to strictly make a rule for every single thing you might do in a fantasy universe. Thats the DM's job to adjudicate based on what existing rules say.

I used vs. Fort because you're trying to knock them out, not trying to penetrate AC - a guy with a steel helm on can still have his bell rung, and the target's fortitude seems to be the most important factor here. (Against a quick monster, maybe Ref would be the most important factor.) It's not perfect but easy enough to use.

Hmm I would still use AC because if you dont get a solid hit your probably not going to ring anyone's bell. But I see what your going for.

In 3X I would use non-lethal damage for the same thing. Mainly because I find it unpalatable that an improvised attack should be able to bypass a common defense to knock someone out when something like say a club or a mace cant. If you allow that you've suddenly made everyone's armor into a better weapon then their actual weapon is.

I don't really get why saying "Okay, well, it's an attack roll with an improvised weapon - so that's STR + BAB -4 against his AC. You hit? Okay, now the save DC is 10 + 1/2 your level + what, your Con modifier? What is that? Okay, now let me roll his Fortitude Save..." is more complicated than "Str + 1/2 level vs. Fort Defence".

Because there is no fort save in 3x for that attack. So most of your 3x equation doesnt exist. It would do normal, non-lethal damage for reasons addressed previously.

So yes "make a normal attack -4, hit, roll normal damage." IS more simple then then the 4e version.

Even if we used something like stunning attack where there was a fort save I find the added complexity to be a positive thing. A simple attack IMO should not be able to add a status condition; especially one as powerful as knocked out without the target having some ability to resist it.

I can accept thats a simple matter of taste though and not a mechanical superiority or inferiority of the rule system though.

 

[timASW]

This is exaggeration. PCs will be using their powers, the movement rules, etc all the time, so those things cannot be attached to the rules cost of a specific scenario. It would be just like insisting that we bring in the entire complexity of the equivalent 3e subsystems, possible spells that might be used, items, etc. The 4e rules are far more regular and structured in a way that is simple to remember and apply as well, trust me they're a LOT less obtuse than 3.5 ever dreamed of being.

What 4e brings to the table here is a way of quickly and easily assessing improvised moves (on one page of the DMG, very easy to look up and use) and a list of about a dozen conditions, and the action economy/turn structure. The resulting system when used in play is VERY easy to adjudicate. On top of that there is a whole terrain powers concept that lets you easily bake the most likely stuff into the scenario ahead of time, which is especially effective for things like modules where someone else will likely run it.

It isn't any ONE thing about 4e that makes it work so well. It is the incremental effect of their strict adherence to a structured system with very simple straightforward and usually minimalistic core elements like keywords, damage types, and conditions. Any time you run into anything in 4e it works very similarly mechanics-wise to doing another thing in a different situation. It just makes things fast and easy. The players are very rarely confused by it and the logic is highly transparent. Even without talking to the DM most reasonably experienced players can make a solid guess as to what the effect of dropping a chandelier or rolling logs down a hill, or whatever is likely to have.

In my personal experience with 4e absolutely everything underlined is not only wrong, its completely backwards. 4e's absurd amount of structure, conditions and situational rules were a rules lawyers wet dream and a total nightmare for me to remember when i tried to DM it.

There was nothing even slightly obtuse about 3e's rules for adjudicating movement and stunts. You used jump or tumble for leaping or tumbling style effects and a Strength or Dexterity check for anything that didnt cover. Add in an attack roll after that if its an attack based stunt.

In 8 years now of running 3e/pathfinder I have never once had any trouble or even delay in adjudicating anything anyone might try to do.

Oh and none of my players would have any trouble guessing what the effect of a falling chandelier or rolling logs would be. they would be damage with a possible extra condition. Probably a knockdown.

Why no table for that? Because maybe I dont want every single rolling log to be exactly like every other rolling log. Maybe some are really big, maybe some are fairly small. Those should be different effects. Maybe one chandelier is huge, with lots of spikes and its lit. Maybe another is a simple rounded, small, light chandelier. Two very different effects.

In my experience that sort of "simplicity" added nothing to my game at all and simply annoyed me every single time i saw it.

 

[Manbearcat]

So yes "make a normal attack -4, hit, roll normal damage." IS more simple then then the 4e version.

I don't agree with anything you've said except this part. It is most certainly easier because:

"make a normal attack -4, hit, roll normal damage"

vs

your Full Attack routine replete with feat synergy for enhanced to-hit, damage, and the possible triggering rider of trip, etc

or

your AoE save or suck spell of encounter enditude/circumvention

means

that you'll never have to worry about improvised actions...because they don't exist in play due to the built-in, overwhelming disparity of Action Economy between improvised actions and class attack modes. Correct, "nonexistence" is much easier to adjudicate.

In all seriousness, I would address the things that you wrote but I am uncertain whether you truly want to have a dialogue about the relative (i) ease of use/consistency and (ii) functionality/relevance of improvised actions, hazards (at-will and limited-use) twixt the two systems. If it turns out that you do, let me know. Perhaps you compose a scenario (battleground features, characters level/class/attack modes) and I will write it up 4e style while you write it up 3e style including our relative means of accomplishing it and the expressions of the battleground features vs characters' attack modes. Relative (i) ease of use/consistency and (ii) functionality/relevance of improvised actions, hazards (at-will and limited-use) twixt the two systems should be readily discernible after that.

 

[SLOTHmaster]

I was wondering how long this would take to degenerate into edition wars. Much longer than I thought.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In my example there were 3 RULES, to remember. How to catch on fire, how to put out fire and what damage dice to roll. And no the chandelier does not need a to-hit roll. Its an area affect.

It's an area affect. Which in the case of just about every area affect in the game grants a reflex save. The difference between a to hit roll and a reflex save is simply a matter of who rolls. Or were your chandeliers autohit, no save allowed?

Yours needs on the other hand to remember different amounts of damage for each target of the effect,

False. 4e has the basic "roll once for damage" principle.

different powers for each possible character to move the opponent,

False. I don't give a damn what powers the PCs have. It's up to them to remember it.

Powers to possibly pin the opponent, You need to check an effects table for christs sake.....

The effects table tells you what damage dice to roll. That is it. So it is rule for rule.

3 rules in 3e versus a the movement chapter, the stunts section, a dozen different powers AND a special effects chart for christs sake..... its not even close. 4e's is way, way more complicated.

You have 2 rules in 3e that do next to nothing. "Set on fire" and "put out fire" are only very rarely applicable - and 4e covers it easily without needing to put in a special rule. So your total stunting rules in 3.X amount to an indication of how much damage to do. Great stunting rules you have there.

And more then that, all the things you mentioned as good are most of the PROBLEM with the 4e system. PC's shouldnt be able to just toss everyone around willing nilly against their will.

Throwing someone at a bonfire shouldnt be a more optimal choice then hitting them with a sword.

And that is why no one ever bull rushes in 3.X. But you are missing the point. (And missing it in a way that mis-represents 4e).

What you should be doing if your enemy's back is to the bonfire is putting him in a lose/lose position. You should be advancing on him, driving him with sword and shield - and using the bonfire to restrict his movement. With the bonfire behind him he has nowhere to retreat to to get out of the way of your sword. 3e does diddly squat to represent this. In 4e if you have an inherently aggressive and forceful combat style (i.e. you have pushes as part of your attacks) then you are driving them back against and into the fire. You aren't pushing them into the fire instead of attacking them normally. You are doing it as well as attacking them normally. It's not sword or fire. It's sword and fire. Walking up and just full attacking rather than attacking and trying to exploit the terrain at the same time is stupid. Because 3.X forces an either or choice you are right in terms of which should be chosen. But it should not be an either-or choice.

Which means that your entire objection might have merit in some circumstances but is completely irrelevant here.

Bookmarks didnt work on your 3X books? How odd.......

Know how many bookmarks I have in my 4e books? None. Unlike 3.X, 4e is simple enough once you understand it that you do not need to consult rulebooks in play. Literally the only rulebooks I have consulted in the last year DMing 4e have been the back of my DM screen (very occasionally), the various monster manuals, and the random treasure generation table in the back of the Rules Compendium.

So tell me about bookmarks and about how your game is so much simpler. I need no bookmarks as either player or DM.

It was not a design goal of earlier editions to strictly make a rule for every single thing you might do in a fantasy universe. Thats the DM's job to adjudicate based on what existing rules say.

Indeed. What rules set is precedents for such situations. And the precedents in 3.X are mostly anti-stunting for reasons I have illustrated. Whereas the precedents in 4e are pro-stunting.

In my personal experience with 4e absolutely everything underlined is not only wrong, its completely backwards. 4e's absurd amount of structure, conditions and situational rules were a rules lawyers wet dream and a total nightmare for me to remember when i tried to DM it.

And I have never had a single problem DMing 4e in terms of remembering the rules mechanics. Which isn't the case in 3e. Off the top of your head can you tell me all the conditions that lead to an Attack of Opportunity? I can't. But I can tell you everything that leads to an Opportunity Attack in 4e.

There was nothing even slightly obtuse about 3e's rules for adjudicating movement and stunts. You used jump or tumble for leaping or tumbling style effects and a Strength or Dexterity check for anything that didnt cover. Add in an attack roll after that if its an attack based stunt.

Sure. If you want to restrict your stunts to flagrantly obvious things that the rules tell you you can do. (Oh, and you forgot balance and climb there). This does not in one single way mitigate the fact that 3.X encourages you not to stunt. It encourages you to full attack (an action that 4e took out and shot with good reason). It encourages you not to push people at all - 4e has attacks that push as a part of the attack.

In 8 years now of running 3e/pathfinder I have never once had any trouble or even delay in adjudicating anything anyone might try to do.

Go you! I've never had any trouble in 4e. I also have a system that isn't hostile to exotic stunts. Last time I was a player my thief ran up the walls, across the ceiling, and performed a death from above, landing with blade outstretched. This didn't even take DM resolution - the whole thing was RAW.

Why no table for that? Because maybe I dont want every single rolling log to be exactly like every other rolling log.

Newsflash: the damage table we are referring to has options. And is strictly a DM tool.

In my experience that sort of "simplicity" added nothing to my game at all and simply annoyed me every single time i saw it.

Were you trying to memorise all the PC side information by any chance? Big DMing mistake in 4e.