D&D 4E What 5E needs to learn from 4E

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.
You're mining for problems to find with it. Building mountains out of mole hills, and where the mole hill didn't even exist to start with.

Stunts in 4e use the same Athletics and Acrobatics checks in basically similar ways to what they did in 3.x, except there are defined ways they can interact with powers, defenses, and damage expressions. The mechanics of it are simpler and more direct, and tie in better with the rest of the system.

You complained about the non-lethal damage system in 3e and the whole oddity of "why would a punch stun when a mace won't", it is like a capsule of the whole system. Too many not quite compatible ways to do things, a billion edge cases and oddities. Come on. You really can't prevail on this, 4e just had it cold, that's all she wrote.

Its fine to like one system or another, but really, what 4e has to teach 5e is unified mechanics, hands down. Ain't ever going back.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There's a couple of instances of rules lawyering in 4E. What constitutes a separate instance of damage for +damage riders. How exactly Lightning Rush works. A few others.

But it's nothing, NOTHING compared to the rules lawyering that occurred when you even wanted to play 3E. As I have said before, there are entire spells that as written in 3E simply don't work. I mean they simply do NOT have any in-game functionality that is comprehensible. The examples I always use is Venomfire, because of its raw strength (under virtually every interpretation) and also how that strength ranges from good, to great, to insanely ridiculous beyond all compare. And there's zero interpretation in the text of how it works, meaning that you have nothing to go on at all. You just have to wing it. And that means endless rules lawyering. Not to mention the multiclass spam (did you know the rules CLEARLY have a penalty for multiclassing that grows and grows? How many 4 class characters completely ignored that?)
 

There's a couple of instances of rules lawyering in 4E. What constitutes a separate instance of damage for +damage riders. How exactly Lightning Rush works. A few others.

But it's nothing, NOTHING compared to the rules lawyering that occurred when you even wanted to play 3E. As I have said before, there are entire spells that as written in 3E simply don't work. I mean they simply do NOT have any in-game functionality that is comprehensible. The examples I always use is Venomfire, because of its raw strength (under virtually every interpretation) and also how that strength ranges from good, to great, to insanely ridiculous beyond all compare. And there's zero interpretation in the text of how it works, meaning that you have nothing to go on at all. You just have to wing it. And that means endless rules lawyering. Not to mention the multiclass spam (did you know the rules CLEARLY have a penalty for multiclassing that grows and grows? How many 4 class characters completely ignored that?)
There are definitely some gribbly bits buried in the 4e rules, but there are a couple of things about that. First of all they're downright oddities, or secondly they're entirely obvious things that if you try hard enough you can parse non-sensically. English will never be exact enough to make perfect rules text. Finally, this is why 5e would be welcome, there are always minor aspects of the system that can be improved!
 


You're mining for problems to find with it. Building mountains out of mole hills, and where the mole hill didn't even exist to start with.

Ever hear the saying "one mans trash is another mans treasure"? Well those problems DID exist and maybe they were not a big deal or even treasure to you, but to ME they went a long towards me giving away my 4e books on craigslist the last time moved. It was that big of a trash to me.

You complained about the non-lethal damage system in 3e and the whole oddity of "why would a punch stun when a mace won't",.

I absolutely did no such thing. Not in any way, shape or form.

I complained that in 4e, an improvised attack with a breastplate could apparently bypass AC and possibly stun an opponent when a mace cant. Not a rule that I myself was familiar with but it was given an example of why 4e was better at that sort of thing so i went with it.



Too many not quite compatible ways to do things, a billion edge cases and oddities. Come on. You really can't prevail on this, 4e just had it cold, that's all she wrote..

Theres nothing even slightly incompatible about lethal and non-lethal damage in 3e.

4e. did exactly one thing right for most of us BUYERS who went to other companies. Free cantrips for casters. Thats it. Everything else was bad ideas done the wrong way for any sort of RPG I would ever want to play or run.

Oh and pretty much everyone had either houseruled free cantrips already or just didnt keep track of them.


Its fine to like one system or another, but really, what 4e has to teach 5e is unified mechanics, hands down. Ain't ever going back.

The "unified mechanics" were bad idea, poorly executed. All taking that lesson would do is doom 5e to a 4 year life cycle just like 4e. Probably less.

Because heres what would happen. Everyone who didnt like 4e would look at that and say "looks like 4e again. NVM" and stick with whatever their playing now.

4e players might buy some of the books but you already have your game. Some might switch over completely but not all. So all they would wind up doing is further fracturing their currently fractured base.

Pretty much the complete 180 of their stated goal.

You have to remember their goal here is not just to put out more stuff that 4e players will love. its ALSO and perhaps more importantly to put stuff in it that those of us who left the company will love and want to pay for again.

The only way they're going to be able to do that is if they listen to us about the things we didnt like and why we didnt like them.

Not keep giving justifications of why we really should like it and just dont understand its awesomeness.

An at least somewhat honest, and humble acceptance that they F'ed up in our opinions and they are absolutely NOT going to get our dollars back if they shovel any more of the same stuff at us that we turned down before already.

And they definately need to lose the attitude that came with the 4e marketing and interviews, blogs, etc. that all the rest of us were idiots who didnt know what we liked and just couldnt understand how great their game was.
 
Last edited:

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.

Here are the pages I use in 4E: Page 42 (for the DCs, I don't use the damage table any more), page 126 (for the treasure tables - a lot of things in my game are based on a roll on the appropriate table), and page 56 (for the XP awards). Every so often I look up the beliefs of the gods, and sometimes the specific details about an environmental feature like Grab Grass (if it comes up on the random terrain features table I use).

Three to five bookmarks are easy to keep track of.

In the last game of 3E I ran, I had to get the books to check out the Sickened condition, the Actions table, the DCs for Tumble checks, the Diplomacy table, the Arms & Equipment Guide for the price of a mantlet (used the AD&D DMG instead), the rules for Craft, and the Coup de Grace rules. (I should probably have used the "catching on fire" rules as well.)

I am not saying that everyone must necessarily find 4E easier to adjudicate, just that I do. I think it's based on how I approach 4E vs. how I approach 3E.

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.

From the SRD:

Catching on Fire
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.​

Most fire spells are, I think, instantaneous, though I haven't checked.

This does make sense to me, though. I think it's a good rule. In the last 3E game the PCs wanted to light some logs on fire and roll them down a set of stairs. I told them that even dry wooden logs won't just burst into flames if you touch them with the flame from a torch - so they bored some holes in the log and filled them with pitch and wrapped the log with cloth. That should burn.

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.

Yeah, you're probably right about it being a problem with the operator.

This is why I have trouble with 3E. I look at the above rule about instantaneous fire spells and I don't see much room for the DM to make a judgement call. (Though it's there, in "don't normally".) A lot of the other rules give me the same impression. I see the rules, in isolation and all together, adding up to telling you what you can and can't do.

I think that, for me, if I were going to use my judgement or common sense, the rules would need to be presented differently. Instead of having a table of actions in combat, you'd have a rule that said "If you can do it, you can do it. Now here's how you resolve different actions, and when you should apply the resolution mechanics..."

That may be how other people read 3E but it's not how I have in the past. (I am thinking of changing up my approach to 3E, as I did with the "Stunning Breastplate".)

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 see what you're saying. Yeah, I would allow this kind of attack - "clobber" the target - with any kind of appropriate weapon (mace, club, fist, whatever). It's possible and a 13-year-old kid can do it, so why not you? For some reason I feel like, as DM, I can just say "Sure, STR vs. Fort" by referencing what the PC is trying to do, whereas I don' (not can't) do that in 3E.

Non-lethal damage would probably be a good idea, too.

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 see - yeah, "improvised weapon attack" is easier than STR vs. Fort, because you don't have to make the call about which defence to target.

What the player wanted to do - and what made sense to me, in terms of the game world - was to knock the ghoul in the head to make him see stars. I was going to say "No, you can't do that" but I had done enough of that in the past and I didn't want the player to stop immersing himself in the game world - and by that I mean picturing himself there, and taking actions as if he were the character.

So I let it work. Without the Fort save, I probably should have added that in; wait, can ghouls get clobbered like that? Undead have some kind of resistance to Fort saves. I'd say yes, they can be clobbered. Oh well.

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

Yeah. I wonder why my approach to 4E is so different from my approach to 3E. I think I'm going to take that approach to my next 3E game and see how it works. We'll see how the group feels about it.

Anyway, thanks for the reply. You've forced me to think about how I run 3E. Do you have any advice for running 3E in a more... "fiction first" manner?
 

The only way they're going to be able to do that is if they listen to us about the things we didnt like and why we didnt like them.
There's a danger in that, though. During the run of 3.x, there was a lot of seemingly very valid criticism of it's lack of balance, particularly class balance, among other complaints. Those complaints were addressed in 4e very well. 4e was rejected. There may have been a number of factors in that rejection, but clearly just listening to the squeakiest wheels and greasing 'em is not enough, by itself...
 

There's a danger in that, though. During the run of 3.x, there was a lot of seemingly very valid criticism of it's lack of balance, particularly class balance, among other complaints. Those complaints were addressed in 4e very well. 4e was rejected. There may have been a number of factors in that rejection, but clearly just listening to the squeakiest wheels and greasing 'em is not enough, by itself...

See; that's interesting, after DMing a 3rd Ed campaign for 3 years up into high levels, I became frustrated with 3rd Ed's number bloat and "broken' spells, etc, so was really jazzed about 4th Ed, so DMed it for 2 years, and just became disillusioned, started perusing my Basic, 1st, and 2nd Ed stuff, and came to the conclusion that something went wrong in 3rd Ed.

I want an edition that takes off from Basic/1st Ed, but proper, no half-ass 2nd Ed, which fixed none of the ludicrous silliness from 1st Ed (still the core!), and then 3rd Ed, which just became absolute nonsense when it came to magic (meta-magic feats, etc).
 

See; that's interesting, after DMing a 3rd Ed campaign for 3 years up into high levels, I became frustrated with 3rd Ed's number bloat and "broken' spells, etc, so was really jazzed about 4th Ed, so DMed it for 2 years, and just became disillusioned, started perusing my Basic, 1st, and 2nd Ed stuff, and came to the conclusion that something went wrong in 3rd Ed.

I want an edition that takes off from Basic/1st Ed, but proper, no half-ass 2nd Ed, which fixed none of the ludicrous silliness from 1st Ed (still the core!), and then 3rd Ed, which just became absolute nonsense when it came to magic (meta-magic feats, etc).

My reading on it is that there are two different games both under the heading of "Dungeons and Dragons." Gygax designed the game mostly around dungeons, and oD&D works very well for that purpose.

Something went wrong starting in 1984 with the publication of the Dragonlance saga. Which was the first of the major "Dragons" strands. It took off. And then something went badly wrong in 1985. Something known as the Blume Brothers and Lorraine Williams. Then came 2e which, although superficially little different to 1e changed the direction of D&D from dungeoncrawling to epic quests. The main change from 1e to 2e wasn't demons to tanar'i (or whatever) it was a change in what you were rewarded for doing. 2e was an attempt to use a game about dungeoncrawling to go questing. 3e was an attempt to put that on a rational basis - but didn't check what the game was about so it was still the core of a game about gritty dungeoncrawls written by people who wanted epic quests. What went wrong was with the rebasis 3.X tried to keep both games but shifted hard to the epic quest science. 4e realised that there were two separate games there and decided to be a d20 game about the epic quests that had been in D&D since the Dragonlance saga and taking it over since 2e first came out.
 

My reading on it is that there are two different games both under the heading of "Dungeons and Dragons." Gygax designed the game mostly around dungeons, and oD&D works very well for that purpose.

Something went wrong starting in 1984 with the publication of the Dragonlance saga. Which was the first of the major "Dragons" strands. It took off. And then something went badly wrong in 1985. Something known as the Blume Brothers and Lorraine Williams. Then came 2e which, although superficially little different to 1e changed the direction of D&D from dungeoncrawling to epic quests. The main change from 1e to 2e wasn't demons to tanar'i (or whatever) it was a change in what you were rewarded for doing. 2e was an attempt to use a game about dungeoncrawling to go questing. 3e was an attempt to put that on a rational basis - but didn't check what the game was about so it was still the core of a game about gritty dungeoncrawls written by people who wanted epic quests. What went wrong was with the rebasis 3.X tried to keep both games but shifted hard to the epic quest science. 4e realised that there were two separate games there and decided to be a d20 game about the epic quests that had been in D&D since the Dragonlance saga and taking it over since 2e first came out.


For the record, I disagree with all of that (on many levels), no edition has constrained me to dungeon crawling or epic questing.
 

Remove ads

Top