D&D 4E Who's still playing 4E

[thanson02]

In all fairness to 5e, the Ranger is reputed to be pretty much the worst class in the game. IN GENERAL I think the 5e classes are really quite good, within the constraints of 5e's flavor of D&D. They cover a lot of character concepts in a pretty compact fashion. If the game had a 4e feel and more of a 4e-based design to it, I think it might have been just what we were looking for.

5E Beastmaster Ranger was an issue. No one I talked to had an issue with the Hunter Ranger (and the one I made worked fine).

However, the rangers in 4E are fun and I enjoyed playing them. 4E had more options, but they were more streamlined and to the point. The 5E Ranger options seem more general so you can get more creative with them. It is a style preference.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

5E Beastmaster Ranger was an issue. No one I talked to had an issue with the Hunter Ranger (and the one I made worked fine).

However, the rangers in 4E are fun and I enjoyed playing them. 4E had more options, but they were more streamlined and to the point. The 5E Ranger options seem more general so you can get more creative with them. It is a style preference.

5e tends to present an entire concept in a single package. 4e makes you build towards a lot of things, constantly selecting more feats and powers that collectively give you what you want. So, sometimes 5e's method is a little bit coarse, you may not get EXACTLY what you want, but they DO have just enough feats (and MCing if you really want to go there) to usually get it very close. In that sense it was executed with a deft hand.

 

[MwaO]

5e tends to present an entire concept in a single package. 4e makes you build towards a lot of things, constantly selecting more feats and powers that collectively give you what you want. So, sometimes 5e's method is a little bit coarse, you may not get EXACTLY what you want, but they DO have just enough feats (and MCing if you really want to go there) to usually get it very close. In that sense it was executed with a deft hand.

There's a rather big hole if you want to play a complex weapon-user in 5e. Especially if your DM doesn't look at the short rest mechanic in the DM guide suggested way.

 

[Jhaelen]

If the game had a 4e feel and more of a 4e-based design to it, I think it might have been just what we were looking for.

Yup, if 5e was an improved version of 4e, I'd be all over it. Unfortunately, it's more like 1e with a pinch of 4e to make it more palatable for modern RPG players.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's a rather big hole if you want to play a complex weapon-user in 5e. Especially if your DM doesn't look at the short rest mechanic in the DM guide suggested way.

I'll have to take your word for it. I mean, obviously, you don't have the level of choice of powers you do in 4e. OTOH you do seem to be able to pick a modest number of somewhat more generic 'moves', plus potential feat synergies. I know dual-wielding and a couple things like that are a little meh, but they exist and I doubt their so gimpy that you wouldn't play those builds.

Personally I prefer 4e, but I think there COULD be somewhat of a happy middle where you could for instance just not make many real big choices and you'd get a fairly generic version of your character concept, and then if you're really into it you can do some sort of swaps and jiggers and whatever to make it do exactly what you like. Likewise a set of fairly generalized powers, for a fighter they can be just scaling versions of 'Hit Harder', 'Push the Guy Back', 'Maximum Defense', 'Take it for a Buddy', etc. You could then pick more detailed and 4e-like powers instead if you have a very specific shtick you want to do.

Harping on my own 4e hacking strategy again, the "when you get boons you level up" concept is working out well, because you don't really get 'builds' per-se. Its much more organic, thus there's not the high level of tweaking everything. You can relax things like requirements for accessing stuff from other classes/archetypes, which means a lot of stuff is just way simpler. There's no need for 'MC feats' for example. If you want to cast some spells and you're a fighter, well gosh golly you better NARRATIVELY come up with how you got access to the knowledge required to do that! If you can, great (and its really up to the DM as to how hard to make you work for that, but generally a boon is a reward for an 'adventure', so make it an adventure and grant the boon, you can see how the logic really 'just works' with this approach).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yup, if 5e was an improved version of 4e, I'd be all over it. Unfortunately, it's more like 1e with a pinch of 4e to make it more palatable for modern RPG players.

I'd say its mechanically more of a tweaked 3.5 with a bit of stuff pinched from Essentials, tweaked to play like 2e.

I don't consider it an 'improved version' of ANYTHING because it doesn't do a style of play that interests me that much, but its always good to objectively understand strengths and weaknesses. 5e is very good at being 5e, and you CAN learn lessons from its design and apply them to more 4e-like games.

 

[darkbard]

There's no need for 'MC feats' for example. If you want to cast some spells and you're a fighter, well gosh golly you better NARRATIVELY come up with how you got access to the knowledge required to do that!

I couldn't disagree with this approach more! I view 4E's ability to separate mechanics from fluff utterly and completely to be one of the system's greatest strengths. If a player wishes to poach a power for his Fighter from the Wizard list because of its synergy with what the character can already do, to my mind, it makes so much more sense to refluff the power as an extension of her already developed martial abilities rather than requiring the character to develop a narrative reason to become a spellcaster and tack on an entirely new dimension to the character.

Sure, if one wanted to pursue a narrative component that sees the Fighter somehow accessing arcane energies through boon or study, etc. that's entirely possible too. I just don't see the need to force the narrative to accommodate what may only be a mechanical choice.

 

[MwaO]

I'll have to take your word for it. I mean, obviously, you don't have the level of choice of powers you do in 4e. OTOH you do seem to be able to pick a modest number of somewhat more generic 'moves', plus potential feat synergies. I know dual-wielding and a couple things like that are a little meh, but they exist and I doubt their so gimpy that you wouldn't play those builds.

It isn't about the level of choice, it is what you can do with the choice and what options actually justify the use.

Basically, a complex weapon user should have the following:
A variety of options to use in every combat.
Mechanical incentive to use that variety of different options in every combat.

At the moment, there's really no incentive to not use the same option repeatedly. In fact, there's some strong incentive to gain specific options(bonuses to hit) so as to be able to max out the advantage of the two big extra damage feats in the game. Because doing so basically doubles damage output with no other option even coming close...

 

[thanson02]

I'll have to take your word for it. I mean, obviously, you don't have the level of choice of powers you do in 4e. OTOH you do seem to be able to pick a modest number of somewhat more generic 'moves', plus potential feat synergies. I know dual-wielding and a couple things like that are a little meh, but they exist and I doubt their so gimpy that you wouldn't play those builds.

Personally I prefer 4e, but I think there COULD be somewhat of a happy middle where you could for instance just not make many real big choices and you'd get a fairly generic version of your character concept, and then if you're really into it you can do some sort of swaps and jiggers and whatever to make it do exactly what you like. Likewise a set of fairly generalized powers, for a fighter they can be just scaling versions of 'Hit Harder', 'Push the Guy Back', 'Maximum Defense', 'Take it for a Buddy', etc. You could then pick more detailed and 4e-like powers instead if you have a very specific shtick you want to do.

Harping on my own 4e hacking strategy again, the "when you get boons you level up" concept is working out well, because you don't really get 'builds' per-se. Its much more organic, thus there's not the high level of tweaking everything. You can relax things like requirements for accessing stuff from other classes/archetypes, which means a lot of stuff is just way simpler. There's no need for 'MC feats' for example. If you want to cast some spells and you're a fighter, well gosh golly you better NARRATIVELY come up with how you got access to the knowledge required to do that! If you can, great (and its really up to the DM as to how hard to make you work for that, but generally a boon is a reward for an 'adventure', so make it an adventure and grant the boon, you can see how the logic really 'just works' with this approach).

Touching base on the dual weapons use, I know a ton of folks that took full advantage of the attack powers that were minor actions as their two weapon fighting options. Granted, there was not alot if them, but it was an option.

My personal opinion is that they should have done this with the dual weapons powers of the fighter, ranger, and the barbarian from the beginning instead of multiple attacks as just a standard action. It would have opened the door for more options for players.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I couldn't disagree with this approach more! I view 4E's ability to separate mechanics from fluff utterly and completely to be one of the system's greatest strengths. If a player wishes to poach a power for his Fighter from the Wizard list because of its synergy with what the character can already do, to my mind, it makes so much more sense to refluff the power as an extension of her already developed martial abilities rather than requiring the character to develop a narrative reason to become a spellcaster and tack on an entirely new dimension to the character.

Sure, if one wanted to pursue a narrative component that sees the Fighter somehow accessing arcane energies through boon or study, etc. that's entirely possible too. I just don't see the need to force the narrative to accommodate what may only be a mechanical choice.

I think that's a slightly different kettle of fish. Yes, if you, as a fighter, want to pick up a spell, particularly one that is already pretty appropriate for a melee combatant (like a swordmage power or something) and perhaps refluff it a bit, or you have some modest narrative justification for acquiring this one ability, then great, there's not some big burden. If its entirely refluffed, then its just a new fighter power, which is fine. I'm just talking about more what 4e's MC feats were about, power swapping, so you could say fire off a fireball without being a wizard. There HAD to be a feat cost to that for fighters in 4e, because its purely a player resource, ANY player can do it at any level up. If you could just pick any power in the game, then class would be almost meaningless. In my approach though, you're unlikely to want to go to the huge trouble of spending a year at wizard's college to gain some spellcasting ability, PLUS it will level you up, and you only get however many levels, which means you may be losing out on fighter stuff you want. Its subtle, but there's more of a feeling of trade-offs involved.