D&D 5E How is 5E like 4E?


log in or register to remove this ad

Aldarc

Legend
Yes. 4e's contribution was to expand the trope footprint and thematics of the barbarian, rather than inspire the mechanics.
IMHO, regardless of how one feels about 4e's mechanics and rules, I do believe that 4e did an incredible job with its grasp of trope play, race/class/role fantasy, and thematics. Thematically, 4e was, again IMHO, probably one of the most thematically solid editions of D&D ever.
 

Undrave

Legend
And in general it takes more magics to heal a high level character than a low level character? Do powerful heros actually resist healing magic?
Yeah that too. You would think a weaker character beaten to 0 HP would be more drained after being healed, but it actually takes more effort to heal a higher level character back to full...

With Healing Surges having a value of 1/4 HP, it means that you need only 4 healing surges to get back to full from 0 HP, regardless of level.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
IMHO, regardless of how one feels about 4e's mechanics and rules, I do believe that 4e did an incredible job with its grasp of trope play, race/class/role fantasy, and thematics. Thematically, 4e was, again IMHO, probably one of the most thematically solid editions of D&D ever.

One of the core goals I believe that was in 4e that 5e inherited was that races and classes had to hit the tropes and playstyles their descriptions mentioned. It wasn't good enough that a class or race just had a bunch of features. The class or race features for the most part had to actually do what the narrative said it did. There was little of "classes sucking at their job" or "classes functioning in ways totally outside of its expected role". There was some, but little of it.

The disagreement was really on which tropes to hit. 5e was more traditional on that at the base than 4e. But 5e was at least focused on it. Most of the "bad features" were ribbon abilities for minor tropes in 5e.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yah and you can keep your PC's AC and NAD handy so you don't need to even ask them if 'X hit or not'.
I really dislike that, as a player, and it's less fun for me as a DM, as well. I find more and more that what I prefer is for the player to know more about what is going on, rather than gathering all the knowledge to myself and just telling my players what happens.
And in general it takes more magics to heal a high level character than a low level character? Do powerful heros actually resist healing magic?
Yeah that too. You would think a weaker character beaten to 0 HP would be more drained after being healed, but it actually takes more effort to heal a higher level character back to full...

With Healing Surges having a value of 1/4 HP, it means that you need only 4 healing surges to get back to full from 0 HP, regardless of level.
See, it makes sense to me. A level 1 Cure Wounds is a small magic. The level 10 fighter has taken big hits. Small magic doesn't do as much because the level 10 fighter needs more done. The level 1 fighter can only take fairly small hits without being taken out, so small magic is all that's needed.
 

I really dislike that, as a player, and it's less fun for me as a DM, as well. I find more and more that what I prefer is for the player to know more about what is going on, rather than gathering all the knowledge to myself and just telling my players what happens.


See, it makes sense to me. A level 1 Cure Wounds is a small magic. The level 10 fighter has taken big hits. Small magic doesn't do as much because the level 10 fighter needs more done. The level 1 fighter can only take fairly small hits without being taken out, so small magic is all that's needed.
This takes us back to the old argument of HP as meat points.
 


overgeeked

B/X Known World
This takes us back to the old argument of HP as meat points.
I liked the notion of bloodied in 4E being the point where things got real. It was all fluff until bloodied. Then it was all fluff until you hit zero. They really should return the bloodied condition and maybe even go back to original hit points which literally tracked how many hits you could take.
 
Last edited:

Undrave

Legend
One of the core goals I believe that was in 4e that 5e inherited was that races and classes had to hit the tropes and playstyles their descriptions mentioned. It wasn't good enough that a class or race just had a bunch of features. The class or race features for the most part had to actually do what the narrative said it did. There was little of "classes sucking at their job" or "classes functioning in ways totally outside of its expected role". There was some, but little of it.

The disagreement was really on which tropes to hit. 5e was more traditional on that at the base than 4e. But 5e was at least focused on it. Most of the "bad features" were ribbon abilities for minor tropes in 5e.
Except for the Monk being back to be a pile of legacy features :p
I liked the notion of bloodied in 4E being the point where things got real. It was all fluff until bloodied. Then it was all fluff until you hit zero. They really should return the bloodied condition and maybe even go back to original hit points which literally tracked how many hits you could take.
I don't know why they removed 'bloodied' as a condition?! It's so easy to have features trigger off of it and it's a thing the in-universe character could notice! They still have feature that work at 'half hp' but decide NOT to codify it?! Why?! You could easily have a 'bloodied value' not on your character sheet too. Some monsters (and races) had bonuses against bloodied opponents and other got new powers when bloodied and a Dragon always recharged their Breath Weapon on bloodied!
 

Remove ads

Top