D&D General Chris Perkins and Stan! - previous D&D edition thoughts

[EzekielRaiden]

Again, only superficially. 3E is a very different game in play, and its built in mini games don't exist or don't work in 5E.

I'm not really seeing how the resemblance is superficial.

A la carte multiclassing is unique to two editions: 3e and 5e.
Scaling numbers of attacks based on your class level, not solely as a feature of just one or two specific classes, is unique to two editions: 3e and 5e.
Saving throws based on your ability scores are unique to two editions: 3e and 5e. (4e did not use saving throws this way.)
Feats are only found in WotC editions, binding them closer together.
Universal d20 resolution is only found in WotC editions.
Unified XP progression is only found in WotC editions.
Various class design precepts are clearly drawn from 3e: metamagic (even if it's now Sorcerer-only) is unique to 3e and 5e, for example.

I'm sure I could come up with more if I weren't dealing with insomnia right now. Point being, there are a LOT of similarities here. If the similarities are only superficial, what are the differences that make 5e so starkly apart from 3e as compared to any other edition?

 

[TwoSix]

I mean, I think it's pretty inarguable that the edition 5e most resembles is 3e. With the sole exclusion of iterative attacks (which were always a bad idea to begin with!), 5e is nearly identical to 3e with just a couple tweaks. Feats are now tied to class level, but they're still there; skills are now gained chunky-style, rather than by skill points; spells other than cantrips no longer automatically scale (but you can still make them stronger). Even the cantrips are really just making 3e's Reserve Feats a general caster feature.

Honestly, 3e, 4e, and 5e are a 3 circle Venn diagram with a large overlap in the center.

3e and 5e share mechanics that 4e doesn't use. (Level-by-level multiclassing, spell slots)

4e and 5e share mechanics that 3e doesn't use. (Yes-No skill proficiencies, unified bonus progression by character level)

3e and 4e share mechanics that 5e doesn't use. (Itemization as an axis of character customization, 3 save model, typed bonuses)

 

[Reynard]

I'm not really seeing how the resemblance is superficial.

A la carte multiclassing is unique to two editions: 3e and 5e.
Scaling numbers of attacks based on your class level, not solely as a feature of just one or two specific classes, is unique to two editions: 3e and 5e.
Saving throws based on your ability scores are unique to two editions: 3e and 5e. (4e did not use saving throws this way.)
Feats are only found in WotC editions, binding them closer together.
Universal d20 resolution is only found in WotC editions.
Unified XP progression is only found in WotC editions.
Various class design precepts are clearly drawn from 3e: metamagic (even if it's now Sorcerer-only) is unique to 3e and 5e, for example.

I'm sure I could come up with more if I weren't dealing with insomnia right now. Point being, there are a LOT of similarities here. If the similarities are only superficial, what are the differences that make 5e so starkly apart from 3e as compared to any other edition?

3E's character generation/advancement minigame is almost entirely absent from 5E.
3E's inherent reliance on magic items is entirely absent from 5E.
The skills systems are almost nothing alike.
3E advancement is based almost entirely around combat and the system is much more tightly bound to the grid.
That isn't even to mention tones and aesthetic choices.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm sure I could come up with more if I weren't dealing with insomnia right now. Point being, there are a LOT of similarities here. If the similarities are only superficial, what are the differences that make 5e so starkly apart from 3e as compared to any other edition?

Combat feels almost identical to me between 3e and 5e. But then again, I never really played 4e enough to comment. But it was clearly unlike any earlier version of D&D.

 

[Blue]

I mean, a highly experienced player can draft a 4e character in two, three minutes tops, especially if they have the character builder ready to hand.

A highly inexperienced player may take hours to build a 2e character.

Without some kind of point of reference, e.g. "how long it takes to introduce a brand-new player" or "working with an average player familiar with at least one previous edition of D&D", it's pretty much impossible to talk about how quick or slow it is. You can get very general trends, e.g. I would argue 3e was the worst offender for slow character creation, 4e and 5e are complex for different reasons with 5e slightly less complex but not by much, and 1e and 2e are less complex....but still a lot more complex than something like Dungeon World.

Just the act of rolling stats makes D&D characters take longer than many other games take.

Nothing you are saying is wrong, but the way it is presented can give mislead a careless reader. Comparing a "highly experienced player" and a "highly inexperienced player" -- very close description making it feel like an apples to apples comparison when it's the exact opposite.

If you equalize experience, it's a much more comparable times.

A moderately experienced player in 2e can create an easy to moderate 1st level character in 10-15 minutes, longer for casters where unique spells need to be read and chosen.

A moderately experienced player in 4e creates all characters at the same rate, but they are all mini-casters with each power unique so takes longer than an easy character in 2e which doesn't have those decision points, but much quicker than a complex character like a caster.

A moderately experienced player in 2014!5e can create characters quicker regardless of complexity that 2e, having similar amounts of decision points but a more standardize mechanic leading to easier comprehension plus the ability to use standard array or point buy instead of rolling.

 

[Chaltab]

Combat feels almost identical to me between 3e and 5e. But then again, I never really played 4e enough to comment. But it was clearly unlike any earlier version of D&D.

In practice 4E plays a lot like low to mid level 3E at the table.

Building a character is a different beast entirely because there's no/few trap options depending on your source so it's not really feasible to make useless or super OP characters.

 

[Reynard]

Combat feels almost identical to me between 3e and 5e.

That seems strange to me. Are you playing 5E super detailed, or did you play 3E super loose?

 

[Clint_L]

4E: An answer to a question of how do we make a game that resonates with Video Gamers? Lots of video games have stolen D&D's tech, how do we get some of those people back?

Whenever I make this (fairly obvious, IMO) point in discussions, and specifically that it was trying to resonate with World of Warcraft players, I get so much pushback. It's nice to have it straight from the horse's mouth.

Edit: this is not a criticism: I played WoW to death. It was a phenomenon at that time.

 

[Staffan]

But, I think you can also argue that despite 5e being more similar to 3e than it is to any other edition, I think there can also be room to argue that of the WotC editions, 5e is the one that is closest to 2e. I don't personally think they're in any way closely related, based off the game design choices in each. The only thing that's even remotely similar IME and IMO is 2e's "Kits", but those were both MUCH more extensive and far more daring (for good and for ill) than 5e subclasses.

I remember when I first got 5e, and it did remind me a lot of 2e in certain parts. The main one were magic items. In both 3e and 4e, there was an expected progression of magic items that you needed to have the right numbers, and items were meant to be able to be easily bought, sold, and made. In addition, in 3e the rules for pricing spellcasting items created ridiculously high prices for anything higher than level 1 (because it was based on spell level * caster level), with ridiculously low save DCs which meant you basically couldn't use them for anything offensive. For example, a pair of drums of panic that can cast a fear spell (with a different AOE) once per day cost 30,000 gp, which is more than the expected treasure of a level 16 encounter. And the save DC on that fear? 16. How often are the creatures a level 16+ character faces going to fail a DC 16 Will save? I'm pretty sure that any level 16 character who found a pair of drums would sell them off for 15k and put that toward upgrading their stat buff from +4 to +6 if they don't already have that.

But 5e doesn't have specific item prices, only very broad categories, and no expectations about what sort of items PCs are supposed to have. At some point they should probably get magic weapons because of all the creatures that are resistant/immune to non-magic damage, but that's it. In addition, bounded accuracy makes low DCs useful for a longer time, because unless a creature is proficient in a save it will stay at its baseline.

The other aspect that reminded me of 2e was how, once you had chosen your class and kit/subclass, your character was basically on rails for the rest of their career – particularly if you don't play with feats and multiclassing (which are specifically called out as optional rules in 5.0). That is not necessarily a good thing, but it does make it easier for newbies.

That's not to say that 5e as a whole is particularly similar to 2e, but aspects of it are.

 

[Staffan]

Whenever I make this (fairly obvious, IMO) point in discussions, and specifically that it was trying to resonate with World of Warcraft players, I get so much pushback. It's nice to have it straight from the horse's mouth.

There's a pretty big difference between "How can we make a game that appeals to people who enjoy Everquest and WoW?" and "Let's make a game that's a tabletop version of an MMO." 4e is the former, not the latter.