D&D (2024) 4e design in 5.5e ?

[Teemu]

If they’re removing the short rest classes’ dependency on short rests and make all classes work off long rests, isn’t that kind of like (pre-Essentials) 4e where every class uses the same ability cooldown schedule? That’s a 4eism that could make it into 5.5!

Speaking of abilities and fluff, I honestly have never had players simply say “I use my at-will/encounter” in a 4e game. At least the name is referred to! Very similar to 5e and 3.5. Also, there are some martial classes in 4e that just “attack”.

Another thing with regards to martial abilities and uses per day or rest—I don’t think I’ve ever heard or read anyone mention that 5e battlemaster maneuvers or a fighter’s second wind are a problem even though their usage is rest dependent. There are others too, like the cavalier’s special attack that’s usable Str mod per day. No one complains about those!

 

[overgeeked]

So cantrips =/= at-will powers despite being able to use them...at will.

And standard caster spell slots =/= daily powers despite being able to use them...wait for it...once per day.

That's certainly a take.

 

[niklinna]

And standard caster spell slots =/= daily powers despite being able to use them...wait for it...once per day.

Well, you can cast any available spell (of appropriate level) with a standard caster spell slot. 4e daily powers (as I recall) were usable once per day, period.

Nevertheless, 5e does have at-will, short-rest (encounter-ish), and long-rest (daily-ish) abiliites; it's just that some of them are usable n times before the requisite rest, instead of strictly once.

 

[Malmuria]

Do you have any examples of specific 4e powers like this? Part of the reason many 4e fans are not keen on such responses is that one, and only one, specific group of classes actually gets subjected to them: martial classes. No one has any problem with the idea that a magical effect can only be used once per combat, but as soon as something is martial, it (for whatever reason) must be bound by what actual, literal human beings in our real, physical world can do. (Even though most people have a pretty bad understanding of the upper limits of human achievement, so it in practice ends up more like "what I, personally, think is possible for a human to do based solely on what I, personally, find difficult to do.")

When the complaint unduly affects the one group within D&D design that has been consistently deprived of opportunities to play at the same level of power and engagement as other groups, it implies a concern about some abstract notion (such as "consistency," "verisimilitude," etc.) being more important than ensuring that most players' desired fantasy gets reasonable and effective representation within the game. Some would disparagingly summarize that as "I can't have fun unless casters are more powerful than non-casters." While that is obviously reductive, it does point to a serious, ongoing issue with D&D design, where anything that tends to be kind to non-casters without also being kind to casters, people find a justification to dislike, and anything that tends to be unkind to casters without also being unkind to non-casters is treated as a horrible affront.

I don't know anything about 4e more or less, was thinking of 5e examples (i.e. battlemaster).

If I were to invent a mechanic in b/x, I might say that if a trained fighter hits they can make a 1 in 6 chance to also trip (or 2 in 6, or a %, or whatever). As you mention, that's also abstract for the purpose of it actually being a game, but somehow I find it easier to connect back to the fiction?

I would agree that strict vanican casting, where you have to memorize the same spell twice in a slot, is similarly "disassociated."

 

[Malmuria]

4E residuum.

I've read about this, but could never see the appeal.

 

[overgeeked]

If I were to invent a mechanic in b/x, I might say that if a trained fighter hits they can make a 1 in 6 chance to also trip (or 2 in 6, or a %, or whatever). As you mention, that's also abstract for the purpose of it actually being a game, but somehow I find it easier to connect back to the fiction?

What we did with B/X was crits let you perform a stunt. Trip, disarm, shove, whatever. But the monsters could do it, too.

I would agree that strict vanican casting, where you have to memorize the same spell twice in a slot, is similarly "disassociated."

I wouldn't. It's purely associated. That "memorization" component lands it solidly in the fiction. The character memorizes the spell and after casting it, literally forgets the spell. That's an instance of the fiction matching the mechanics. Basically the opposite of disassociated mechanics. Disassociated mechanics is more like the battlemaster somehow being unable to trip someone (use a maneuver) once they've run out of superiority dice. There's no connection between the fiction and the mechanics. Hence it's disassociated. You could squint and argue that it's the fighter getting tired. But there's no fictional equivalent to superiority dice. There is a fictional equivalent to memorizing a spell and casting it.

I've read about this, but could never see the appeal.

For me it was three things.

1. It made the characters sacrifice magic items to create residuum. I really, really dislike the buying and selling of magic items. To me, that makes them not magical in the wondrous sense. It makes them mundane tools to be bought, sold, and traded. Something you can order in the mail. "Yeah, I'd like that +1 shovel delivered on Tuesday please." That takes the magic out of it. I'm firmly in the camp that gives magic items names and histories. I also shy away from boring +X items. I give them powers, abilities, or spells. Magic items that level with you so you don't just trade up. Blech. How dull. So when the PCs decide to sacrifice a magic item to create residuum, it matters. No one cares if you turn the 30th +1 longsword you've found into a pile of dust. They do at least pause when you're talking about sacrificing Orcrist the Goblin-Cleaver, an Elven sword from Gondolin, the mate of Glamdring, which became the sword of Thorin II Oakenshield during The Quest of Erebor...it was feared and called Biter by the Goblins of the Misty Mountains.

2. It gave the characters a resource to spend on rituals and that could be traded / used as money. I really dislike the idea of characters carrying around tens or hundreds of thousands of gold with them everywhere they go. Again, it becomes ridiculous and unbelievable rather quickly. So trading up to gems, jewels, and residuum makes way more sense. A pound of residuum could fit in a pouch and is worth 50,000 gp. And it puts characters in a spot. They have to decide what's more important. The coin value of the residuum or casting that ritual and using the residuum as a component.

3. It was also used in the creation of magic items (via a ritual). Again, it gives characters a choice. They can make this specific magic item they want or they can keep the really valuable component / trade good. But they also get to inject some cool bit of lore into the world. Like this sword is Andúril, also called the Flame of the West, which was reforged from the ashes of Narsil in Rivendell.

 

[Mordhau]

I encourage you to check out the post I linked above. I wrote it, specifically breaking down all the points of design where I felt the two games diverge despite appearing similar (and at least a few places where 5e is more like 4e than 3e!)

The one thing I didn't specifically discuss there was short rest abilities. The fact that 5e changed the short rest to be an entire hour pretty radically changed the nature of short-rest anything in 5e vs 4e. In 4e, short-rest abilities are reliable tools, something you can count on to have basically all the time--with short rests being only five minutes, it's hard but not impossible to enter a combat without all of your short-rest abilities at the ready. Not so with 5e, both intentionally and unintentionally: they very much intended short-rest abilities to be stretched out over 2, or even sometimes 3 combats. They also intended that players would get 2-3 short rests (average 2.5 or a little higher) per day, when in practice, most groups go for 1-2 per day (average 1.5 or a little lower). Short-rest classes were balanced for a playstyle that doesn't, generally speaking, actually happen. So, in both theory and practice, 5e short-rest abilities are a rare spice to be carefully rationed; 4e short-rest abilities are reliable tools meant to be deployed consistently. Again, a case of "vaguely similar, but shorn of critical parts."

That's part of what's going to change in 5.5e, by the by. Most classes that use short-rest things are going to be reworked so that they instead use some variation on the "proficiency bonus per long rest" system. I'm not sure how they intend to fix some of the bigger issue cases, like Battlemaster Fighters and Warlocks who are disproportionately punished by getting few short rests per day, but they'll almost certainly do something.

Short rests did solve one particular problem in 4e though (although 13th Age's escalation die may be a better solution).

That was that the encounter powers often led to fights getting quite repetitive. There was pretty much little good reason to hold back on using your best powers right away and then cycling through them in order every time. Short rests in 5e basically stop the Fighter from opening every fight with an Action Surge. It encourages the Fighter to hold back and consider whether it's worth using this fight or holding off for a later one.

 

[Mordhau]

It is because it didn't. We'd have folks show up with familiars fluffed as Gold Dragons. It really meant nothing.

I got a bit jaded with reskinning when I realised that a lot of paragon paths both: a) did a poor job really connecting to their fluff and b) were just poor compared to the best ones that were available. It made me wonder what was the point of releasing new volcano favour barbarian path was when one could just pick the best barbarian path and reskin it as volcano flavoured.

I tend to feel the same about 5e subclasses though.

 

[niklinna]

Some 5e subclasses are easier to reskin than others. That Wildfire Druid is always going to be doing fire stuff, for example, no matter what their wildfire spirit looks like. A Tasha's Beast Master Ranger can skin their beast however they like and pick from 3 different stat blocks, and change both with a long rest. (They are still all just beasts, though, doing physical damage as opposed to fire/cold/poison/etc.) And then the Genie Warlock gets to choose from 4 different sub-sub-classes, in a sense! Why the wildfire spirit wasn't done in similar fashion, I have no idea. Page count, maybe.

 

[Lanefan]

IMO the only - only! - 4e mechanic I've seen that's really worth porting forward into a new edition is "bloodied".

Port the bloodied mechanic forward - and then use it as a first step toward a proper wound-vitality or body-fatigue hit point system.