A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Hussar]

This is, for me, the most fundamental difference between 4e and 5e. 4e is based on the encounter, and hence supports a scene-framing approach. Whereas 5e is based on "the day", and therefore - it seems to me - favours pre-plotting and GM control over encounter sequences.

There are other differences - eg 5e doesn't have skill challenges or DCs-by-level; and 4e combat seems to me to make positioning more important and interesting than 5e combat - but the pacing aspect I think is the most fundamental.

I'd say that's fair.

Although, the "DC's by level" really aren't, in practice, terribly different than "limited DC's with limited bonuses". By and large, the end result is the same - about a 66% success rate is expected for most skill checks.

And, yup, the removal of encounter powers tends to reduce the impact of positioning, plus the fact that encounters rarely last as long as 4e encounters - at a gut guess I'd say 5e encounters end up around 4 rounds (give or take) while 4e generally take about twice that. 5e is a much, much faster paced game.

Add to that the removal of the "reaction" actions, many of which were encounter level, where you had a bajillion triggered actions in a given round, plus the removal of most "effect conditions" and you do have a significantly simplified combat system.

However, those tend to be pretty specific things. At a somewhat higher altitude, I find that both games frequently play out similarly. There are a few things I miss though. I think that 5e could seriously benefit from a Page 42 mechanic. Then again, I think pretty much all games could benefit from that.

 

[Maxperson]

I dunno. I think it's somewhat counter-intuitive that they're more dangerous when grappling then when eg throwing rocks or shooting arrows or stabbing with spears.

When I was 19 or 20, my buddies and I went to the local middle school and were playing football. While we were there, a group of 6-8(can't remember exactly) middle school kids came out and challenged us to tackle football. We thought it was the funniest thing and agreed, but we said it was touch for us, and they could tackle. One of my buddies was 6'2" or 6"3, 245 pounds and played offensive line in high school. He could bench press as much as someone with an 18/00 strength in 1e, which he reminded us of fairly often. All we did when we had the ball was hand it to him and let him run. Those kids were tenacious. First one would grab him and hold on, then two, then four, and soon all 6 or so were on him. At first he would just keep walking like goliath with a bunch of hobbits clinging to him, but by the time 6 grabbed a hold, he went down. In a fight he would have destroyed all of them and barely worked up a sweat. Grappling as a group, though, they took him down every time.

Orcs being much closer in size to the high level fighter, and nearly as strong, would have a much easier time taking the fighter down with a group grapple. If they kept their distance, though, and let him use his weapons, they'd be toast.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, mainly, almost ALL spells are daily resources. Class features and other similar stuff often have a daily resource usage mechanic of some sort as well. Its not far off from 2e or earlier systems in that respect, though cantrips and rituals are mitigating factors.

I don't think that 5e is actually that much like 4e in terms of play process however. It is a much different game. The mechanical subsystems are pretty similar in a general way, but employed to different ends. I couldn't, for instance, adapt 5e to play in my preferred 4e style.

Shhh!! Don't clue him in. He's busy mocking me with his superior knowledge.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When I was 19 or 20, my buddies and I went to the local middle school and were playing football. While we were there, a group of 6-8(can't remember exactly) middle school kids came out and challenged us to tackle football. We thought it was the funniest thing and agreed, but we said it was touch for us, and they could tackle. One of my buddies was 6'2" or 6"3, 245 pounds and played offensive line in high school. He could bench press as much as someone with an 18/00 strength in 1e, which he reminded us of fairly often. All we did when we had the ball was hand it to him and let him run. Those kids were tenacious. First one would grab him and hold on, then two, then four, and soon all 6 or so were on him. At first he would just keep walking like goliath with a bunch of hobbits clinging to him, but by the time 6 grabbed a hold, he went down. In a fight he would have destroyed all of them and barely worked up a sweat. Grappling as a group, though, they took him down every time.

Orcs being much closer in size to the high level fighter, and nearly as strong, would have a much easier time taking the fighter down with a group grapple. If they kept their distance, though, and let him use his weapons, they'd be toast.

Wut. Your example of how grappling is just better than melee is a bunch of kids clinging to your friend who isn't trying to stop them at all. And, somehow, this is obviously more effective at stopping your friend than if they all just threw rocks or came at him with spears?

 

[Hussar]

Shhh!! Don't clue him in. He's busy mocking me with his superior knowledge.

Sorry to burst your bubble [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], but, this is in response to earlier questions from [MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION]. And, heck, my 4e and 5e games aren't all that different. Maybe other folks are. Mine? Not so much. I find 5e to be mostly an update of 4e, particularly from the Essentials stuff. Certainly closer to 4e than 2e with which it shares virtually no mechanics. I mean, there's almost no 2e dna in 5e - the spell system is completely different, whether it's daily casters using Sorcerer mechanics or short rest casters like the Warlock which have no equivalent at all in 2e. The skill system is 4e's skill system without the level adjustments. The combat system is straight up d20.

Me, I look at it pretty simply. Could a 4e player, with no experience in 5e, read a 5e character sheet? Pretty much. A 2e player? Wouldn't even recognize the character sheet as being a D&d character. The only thing that 5e shares with earlier editions is some milksop advice on letting the DM be in charge (which is really easy to ignore) and a sliver of monster lore.

Does anyone really think a 2e fighter looks anything like a 5e fighter?

 

[Numidius]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], would you elaborate on how aren't so different your 4e and 5e games?

On 4e combat, from what I understand, it looks similar to the crunch heavy Swords&Sorcery boardgame I played last year.

Also curious about 2e vs 5e fighters

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], would you elaborate on how aren't so different your 4e and 5e games?

On 4e combat, from what I understand, it looks similar to the crunch heavy Swords&Sorcery boardgame I played last year.

Also curious about 2e vs 5e fighters

It's a little difficult to describe things in negative terms like that. But, yeah, we do pretty much the same things in our 5e games that we did in our 4e games and, honestly, not that differently from our 3e games. I mean, heck, I updated both 4e and 3e modules for play in 5e, so, it's not really that hard. I played Primeval Thule, a setting designed for 3e and 4e and then updated to 5e without too much difficulty.

To be honest, I don't see a whole lot of differences. I look at the 4e Dungeon adventures that I have and realize that these would work pretty much as is in a 5e game. If I wanted to run Chaos Scar, for example, in 5e, what changes do I really have to make?

To me though, there's no point of similarity between a 2e and 5e fighter. Umm, weapons and armor I suppose. Hit Dice is the same. But, that's about it. Number of attacks, stats, ability to self heal, completely different skill system, the ability of 5e fighters to leverage short rest recharges. Heck the fact that 5e fighters have abilities that actually recharge. There's just nothing similar there. Those are two completely different characters who happen to share a name.

 

[Maxperson]

Wut. Your example of how grappling is just better than melee is a bunch of kids clinging to your friend who isn't trying to stop them at all. And, somehow, this is obviously more effective at stopping your friend than if they all just threw rocks or came at him with spears?

If he was in armor and armed with the appropriate skill with his weapon, it would be equal to the unarmed skill difference during that football game. 6 armed orcs are nothing to a high level fighter. 6 grappling orcs can take the fighter down. That was the point.

 

[Maxperson]

To be honest, I don't see a whole lot of differences. I look at the 4e Dungeon adventures that I have and realize that these would work pretty much as is in a 5e game. If I wanted to run Chaos Scar, for example, in 5e, what changes do I really have to make?

Modules are a really poor example, as you generally don't have to make much in the way of changes regardless of edition. I routinely ran 1e and 2e modules for my 3e game. Modules are mostly just story. Swapping monsters out for the current edition is simple. The same with traps. NPCs are the most work, but it's not hard to redo them with the current rules set.

To me though, there's no point of similarity between a 2e and 5e fighter. Umm, weapons and armor I suppose. Hit Dice is the same. But, that's about it. Number of attacks, stats, ability to self heal, completely different skill system, the ability of 5e fighters to leverage short rest recharges. Heck the fact that 5e fighters have abilities that actually recharge. There's just nothing similar there. Those are two completely different characters who happen to share a name.

Stats are more same than different. Dex still gives bonuses to AC and initiative. Con gives bonuses to hit points. Strength to hit, damage and determines what you can carry. They are the same six stats. Further, I note you didn't try to compare wizards or clerics, who are closer to their 2e versions with memorizing spells.

It doesn't matter, though. 5e is not 4e. Most of the issues I had with 4e are gone, though I am struggling with the adventuring day problem. I don't like it one bit. Right now I've switched to making a long rest a week so that I don't have to provide a ridiculous number of encounters in a single day in order to challenge the PCs, but I'm not sure this will work, either, and if it doesn't I don't know what to do as the "adventuring day" is so ingrained.

 

[Sadras]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], would you elaborate on how aren't so different your 4e and 5e games?

I'm not Hussar, but he is right - mechanically there are many similarities between 3e and 4e with 5e.
You have your feats, your skills, and healing (surges became HD mechanic), class abilities, ability score improvements, rituals, ability-based saving throws, no THACO, rest and power refresh rates, monster design...etc

5e though does though feel to draw from 2e with it elevating the DM, and the general old-school spirit of the game.

I think your roleplaying history might determine how you view 5e and where the primary influence of the game originates from. I'm very much a 2e/BECMI player so 5e resonates that feeling, although I can completely see where Hussar is coming from regarding the mechanics.

Ignore the 2e DMing-guidance and insert 4e's page 42, SC and residuum and you're playing 4e, more or less.