D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[Kannik]

Erf, unfortunately I don't seem to have it. And I'm starting to think (remember?) that it might have been a post on Wizards' website rather than an actual booklet (which if that is the case that might well have been a missed opportunity). Sorry for getting hopes up. :/

I found it! Well, its more like I luckily stumbled across it... But here we go, and it was indeed a webpage and not a separate book:

Converting Your Character: PH

Converting Your Character: PH

web.archive.org

For whatever reason, I distinctly remember the Monk conversion recommendation, and only the Monk one. Which is weird, as I wasn't playing a monk at the time -- maybe because it was the most extensive one listed in the article?

Here is the web page I stumbled upon that has the links to all of the conversion posts from Wizard's website (which you'll have to search within the wayback machine to access):

Table of Roles and Power Sources

 

[Hussar]

No. We WERE bothered by many of the changes and the fact that some of the structure and math made it through to 5e only means that there were some changes that were palatable - you really need to stop claiming what and how we felt at the time.. And 5e was pretty up front with much of what was going on and with engagement with fans. Remember all those monster surveys? And the broad public play test that put a lot of the changes out for us to see? The behavior of WotC in the run-up to 5e was very different from 4e - they had been burned by the 4e experience and went looking for more of basics that kept us in D&D in the first place. The interaction was less "we're redesigning everything" and more "what does D&D mean to you?".

The fact that every criticism of 4e applies to 5e yet vanished in the haze tells me that people weren’t bothered all that much.

Heck, upthread Celebrim goes on at length about how it was the conversation around 4e and not really 4e itself that was the problem. All those lovely “discussions “ about how as meat or disociated mechanics or lore changes or on and on all vanished. Even though they are still just as present in 5e.

So no I don’t believe that the issues with 4e had much to do with 4e as a game. If it was then 5e would be just as objectionable as 4e.

Meh. It really doesn’t matter. This is such a lost cause. Ten years later it still stings but I’ve pretty much accepted that it was what it was.

I just think it’s a real shame that the primary lesson learned from 4e is that WotC now holds fandom at as far as an arms length as it can. But considering how everything they said would be twisted into the absolute most negative way possible I can’t really blame them.

 

[Alzrius]

The fact that every criticism of 4e applies to 5e

5E has damage on a miss?!

 

[James Gasik]

There's a weapon mastery for it in the playtest for 2024

 

[Yalım]

5E has damage on a miss?!

I'm mostly interested in the 5e PHB2 and PHB3. Apparently I missed half a dozen or so base classes!

 

[Micah Sweet]

The fact that every criticism of 4e applies to 5e yet vanished in the haze tells me that people weren’t bothered all that much.

Heck, upthread Celebrim goes on at length about how it was the conversation around 4e and not really 4e itself that was the problem. All those lovely “discussions “ about how as meat or disociated mechanics or lore changes or on and on all vanished. Even though they are still just as present in 5e.

So no I don’t believe that the issues with 4e had much to do with 4e as a game. If it was then 5e would be just as objectionable as 4e.

Meh. It really doesn’t matter. This is such a lost cause. Ten years later it still stings but I’ve pretty much accepted that it was what it was.

I just think it’s a real shame that the primary lesson learned from 4e is that WotC now holds fandom at as far as an arms length as it can. But considering how everything they said would be twisted into the absolute most negative way possible I can’t really blame them.

I don't know. 5e is hardly a poster child for simulation, but I think 4e was waving flags in favor of mechanics over fiction that were a lot bigger than those of its successor. I can work with 5e to make it more of the game I want to play. As much as I respect 4e in its own right, I couldn't get it to work the way I liked.

Its harder to kit-bash a system that proudly takes a stance on design you happen to disagree with than one that barely takes a stance at all.

 

[Hussar]

I don't know. 5e is hardly a poster child for simulation, but I think 4e was waving flags in favor of mechanics over fiction that were a lot bigger than those of its successor. I can work with 5e to make it more of the game I want to play. As much as I respect 4e in its own right, I couldn't get it to work the way I liked.

Its harder to kit-bash a system that proudly takes a stance on design you happen to disagree with than one that barely takes a stance at all.

That’s the point though. Its exactly what I’m saying. 5e is no more simulationist than 4e. Even right down to ejecting 11 movement. It’s just that 5e didn’t tell people that that was what they were doing.

4e’s greatest flaw was being totally transparent.

 

[darjr]

That’s the point though. Its exactly what I’m saying. 5e is no more simulationist than 4e. Even right down to ejecting 11 movement. It’s just that 5e didn’t tell people that that was what they were doing.

4e’s greatest flaw was being totally transparent.

How transparent was it that monster hit points were doubled across the board at release?

It took a few months for the community to figure it out.

 

[MockingBird]

5E has damage on a miss?!

Unfortunately it will

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s the point though. Its exactly what I’m saying. 5e is no more simulationist than 4e. Even right down to ejecting 11 movement. It’s just that 5e didn’t tell people that that was what they were doing.

4e’s greatest flaw was being totally transparent.

I think 5e is more simulationist than 4e, at least somewhat. Not as much as I'd like, obviously.

And if you're right, perhaps D&D players want to decide how to play themselves rather than have the game (loudly and proudly) decide for them. Or perhaps there should be more than one game available, catering to different playstyles. Of course, we do have multiple games, but it's a (to me) sad fact that so many people only see the one WotC is currently selling. I'm sure we can agree on that.