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

[Raith5]

I really enjoyed 4e and I like 5e. I would like a bit more complexity/tactical choices for PCs and monsters in any 5.5 but not too much as to make fights take as long as in 4e.

One thing I miss from 4e are customization options like paragon paths and epic destinies (or prestige classes in 3e). I think more customization options is something I would like to see - especially at mid and higher levels. I also prefer feats to be a core part of the game as per 3e and 4e and to have more of them than 5e.

I also think that high level play is something they can tweak to make 5e work better at higher level. While a much of this rests on the design of adventures (and advice given to DMs), I think slightly more complex monsters and more customizable PCs could help here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I mean, I did literally go into the exact reasons for that, in a post that was generally well-received by most people, even those I often disagree with. Instead of just dismissing the argument out of hand, you could dig deeper and ask how and why someone could come to that conclusion, given that there are similarities between these mechanics.

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?

That's fair, though a big part of the problem is simply the randomness. Being at the mercy of the dice as to whether you get your class fantasy is pretty disappointing in modern game design. In old-school games, "class fantasy" was handled dramatically differently (a mixture of behind-the-scenes elements and only having a small number of classes to begin with). Modern games with an old-school lean, such as Dungeon World, tend to do this by making strongly-thematic fundamental moves that are expected to show up a lot, e.g. the Fighter's Bend Bars, Lift Gates move or the Paladin's I Am The Law move. IOW: While your idea is sound in the context of proper old-school gaming (as in, not inspired by, but rather the real deal or emulating it as close as possible), in practice with today's games and gamers it probably wouldn't be received well.

To use a highly simplified analogy: Imagine if you had to roll a die just to find out if you were allowed to make attack rolls this turn, or carry heavy equipment this adventure, or whatever else. Whether or not it feels connected back to the fiction, having your "special thing" be gated behind the whims of the dice does not, in general, feel super engaging for a lot of folks today.

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.

In theory, this was supposed to be alleviated by replacing your Encounter powers every few levels, but yes, I grant that. I massively prefer the 13th Age solution though. It's significantly more user-friendly game design to create incentive to hold onto your strong tools, rather than to not let you have those tools. (Particularly when other and far less potent tools are also shackled to those limits, like Expertise Dice or Ki points.)

 

[Horwath]

It's not there already?

Hit dice, short rest abilities, and at will cantrips don't count?

Yes,

But 5min short rest IS a short rest, 1hr short rest IS NOT short.

25% max HP healing surges were much cleaner to use than rolling HDs

so, I do not like 4E that much, but at-will cantrips, healing surges and 5min rests were all good things.

 

[Aldarc]

Rationalize or put into words/a conceptual framework?
Seems to me a lot of people‘s approach to Justin Alexander’s analysis are just as subject to rationalization depending on their feelings about 4e. The bottom line is either his approach makes sense to you or it doesn’t and whether or not that is true probably depends on whether you feel the same disconnect as he did with 4e.

I don't mind if he likes 4e D&D or not. People are welcome to have their opinions. My issue is that he hides it behind faulty reasoning, objectivity, and the airs of careful analysis. I enjoy analyses, and the Alexandrian can provide good ones, but I think an emotional approach would have been more honest, showcase greater good faith, and resonated more clearly than his "analytical" one.

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

"It isn't because it did. [recounts personal anecdotal evidence]" Is that sort of argumentation actually convincing for you because that is how you arguing your case.

Anyway, design things (§) from 4e that I would like to see return to 5e in some form:

• More interesting monster/encounter design and building tools
• Monster types, including Minions.
• The Bloodied condition, which can be used to trigger additional effects for PCs or NPCs
• Proper Short Rests
• Some possible rework of Skill Challenges that makes more sense in the context of 5e
• Druid shape-shifting forms that scale with level and aren't just managing monster manual stat blocks
• The Warlord (unrealistic, but I reserve my right to dream)
• I would love Saves turned back to three Defenses (Fortitude, Reflex, Will)

(§) Otherwise I would be writing about the Nentir Vale, Dawn War, and Points of Light in a giant essay.

 

[Lyxen]

so, I do not like 4E that much, but at-will cantrips, healing surges and 5min rests were all good things.

There were a lot of brilliant design ideas in 4e, actually, unfortunately the philosophy of the game and its design intent were not the ones that I was looking for and, apparently not the ones that the potential players were looking for. Note that this is not specifically disparaging for 4e, because my views is that neither was it that of 3e (and despite the fact that that edition also brought a lot of good things). All this, of course, based on the way the game went in terms of sales and public appeal.

However, the design intent of 5e is actually completely opposite to that of 4e. 4e wanted to control everything by its very design, whereas 5e only aims at providing guidelines and being minimalistic so as to provide as open-ended a game as possible.

This is why introducing mechanics from 4e back into 3e is in itself problematic, 5e does not want more rules, and certainly does not want control through those rules.

Some examples:

• Bloodied: At start, I regretted the absence of bloodied in 5e, but I don't not anymore. I don't want to have to deal with that status all the time, for all creatures and in all combats, but if I want to create a mythic monster (which basically creates monsters that can be fairly different depending on their phase) for a specific combat, I can. And I did not even have to wait for MOoT to do that, multipart monsters made sense and had been developed almost from 5e inception. And I had no unforgiving set of rules that prevented me from doing this, and therefore no annoying ruleslawyer to tell me that I was violating the rules of Monster Design.
• Monster Design: Yes, having long list of spells can be annoying to manage IN COMBAT when you want to streamline them. But first, my NPCs are not designed to function only in combat, and having utility spells for other situations is useful. Moreover, if I want to create a monster with limited spell lists, including at will spells, this has been possible from the start of 5e. But I could have the whole range (complete lists, partial lists or simple powers) without, again having the system or a ruleslawyer tell me that I was designing my monster wrong.
• Skill Challenge: Yes, some people like to have them as a structure for their activities in the game, and yes, they might be a help for more inexperienced DMs in managing complex situations. But I don't need them, and I don't like how thy format what could/should be a freeform game around seeking successes rather than failures over rollplaying skill checks. I don't need that kind of control structure and, inherently, the game does not need it, people played exploration/social pillars of the game extremely well for decades without them. Again, as an option or a suggestion, they might be mentioned in the DMG, but there is no need for them being in the core.
• Monster/Encounter design: God, I hated 3e monster design that forced the DM to abide by player rules so that they could audit your monster, 4e simplified it because they made it around simpler concepts, but in the end, like most things in 4e, they did it by restricting the way you could design a monster. It was done with a good intention in mind, balancing the monsters and encounters. But it severely restricted the way monsters and encounters were designed in the name of balance. Again, this is fundamentally opposed to 5e design, where creative freedom is more important than rules. Yes, monster and encounter design is much more fluffy, and needs more experience, but I prefer a much more open game even if I make mistakes now and then.

So, for me, the good things to import are those who do not violate the design philosophy of 5e. And these are actually more additions than more control:

• I would love a Warlord and Swordmage, two of my favourite classes, that I played to high levels in 4e and which gave me good times even though I felt strangled by the design of the game.
• I would like to see the Nentir Vale again, perfect place to start a campaign and make it grow.
• I would like many more rituals, for all classes and power types.

 

[Shiroiken]

No on skill challenges. Please no. No. no no. Not again.

While not as detailed as the skill challenges of 4E, I've found using group skill checks to be a simpler method of achieving the same results in game (overcoming an obstacle). The gamest mentality required for skill challenges always threw me out of the moment, hampering gameplay. Even if you wanted to have a longer or more complicated challenge, you could simply add additional checks or allow the choice of multiple skills. For example, crossing a wilderness might require 2 group checks of wis/survival or str/athletics, with each failed group check costing a rank of exhaustion.

 

[Olrox17]

I don't mind if he likes 4e D&D or not. People are welcome to have their opinions. My issue is that he hides it behind faulty reasoning, objectivity, and the airs of careful analysis. I enjoy analyses, and the Alexandrian can provide good ones, but I think an emotional approach would have been more honest, showcase greater good faith, and resonated more clearly than his "analytical" one.


"It isn't because it did. [recounts personal anecdotal evidence]" Is that sort of argumentation actually convincing for you because that is how you arguing your case.

Anyway, design things (§) from 4e that I would like to see return to 5e in some form:

• More interesting monster/encounter design and building tools
• Monster types, including Minions.
• The Bloodied condition, which can be used to trigger additional effects for PCs or NPCs
• Proper Short Rests
• Some possible rework of Skill Challenges that makes more sense in the context of 5e
• Druid shape-shifting forms that scale with level and aren't just managing monster manual stat blocks
• The Warlord (unrealistic, but I reserve my right to dream)
• I would love Saves turned back to three Defenses (Fortitude, Reflex, Will)

(§) Otherwise I would be writing about the Nentir Vale, Dawn War, and Points of Light in a giant essay.

If I could agree with this post more than once, I would.

 

[clearstream]

@EzekielRaiden suggested I post this in its own thread, so blame them if this goes off the rails!

As 5.5 is announced, it is also clear that 4e is having a moment, due in no small part by Matt Colville's recent advocacy and streaming. I never played 4e, but it seems there are a lot of fans of the edition here, and I'm curious as to your take on 4e design, and what 4e have or should be brought over into 5.5. This discussion started by me asking what people thought of Justin Alexander's many criticisms of the system, some of which are here:

Dissociated Mechanics – A Brief Primer

Four years ago, in an effort to understand why I found so many of the design decisions in the 4th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons antithetical to what I wanted from a roleplaying game, I wrote an es

thealexandrian.net

So, very much not trying to start an edition war here! So let's be nice to everyone! Rather, looking to gather thoughts on how mechanics from 4e played out at the table (e.g. did they feel "disassociated"), and what should be brought forward into 5.5.

As I have commented elsewhere, I'd encourage those interested in this question to look at the Book of Nine Swords (ToB) and then revisit their thoughts on associated versus dissociated.

Take Alexander's one-handed catch mechanic that he classifies as dissociated. Imagine that instead of the world we live in, we lived in a slightly different world - one in which it was normal to have one-use abilities like that. Perhaps the brains and muscles of creatures in this imaginary world are wired differently to ours: they highly potentiate around one astounding action, and then go into a fatigued state.

Such a world seems alien to us - maybe even improbable - because we don't live in a world like that. The point here is that "dissociated" as Alexander (and others) use it, really means "alien". But aren't fantasy worlds - in ways that we value - always alien to our own? I've never cast a spell or met an elf. If we want to be strict in our dissociative classification, don't we need to include everything imaginary? Returning to his one-handed catch example, the reason he judges that it is associative for fireball to be limited use, and dissociative for catch, is that spell-slots have been normalized.

What the commentary amounts to is that we easily accept in our fiction things that have been normalized for us, and we find suspension of disbelief-breaking things that don't seem normal to us. ToB and the 4th edition rules that came after it, present a different take on the limits of character abilities. Nearer to Eastern fantasy than Western. Less spells, more innate force. Flow. That doesn't mean one has to enjoy that kind of fantasy - or even that it was the right choice for an edition of D&D - but I would argue that coming up with a classification for the 'wrong-kind-of-imaginary' deserves challenging.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

4e had really cool things.
I already see a lot of 4e in 5e. In some parts the 4e rules were actually better. Now that 4e is 10 years away, you can restore the original rules in some parts (death saving throws in 4e were better, as they only restted after a short rest. Short rests were more paractical. Healing surges were great, especially with the second wind encounter power).

Edit: dissociation for us was due to at will powers and shifting. Combat could not be resolved in natural language. It was all technical.
4e essentials did a good job of reducing dissociation when they went to base attacks mainly. But shifting remained.
We didn't object martials getting some encounter powers or even dailies.

 

[clearstream]

Combat could not be resolved in natural language.

I think if Alexander had framed his discussion in terms of awkwardness in narrating imagined action that falls outside whatever normal language we have available to us, where that awkwardness can jar us out of suspension-of-disbelief, then I would feel sympathetic toward that view.

That is exactly the problem you describe - you could not narrate 4th-edition combat in language that came easily to you. You would have needed to be provided new language to do it. Fast-flowing, easy role-play happens when we can lean into tropes. Our tropes... those normal to us. Perhaps you once tried Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne (EPT). EPT is a very different place from what we might be used to. That was what was wonderful about it!

I suspect that when designers working into the mechanics concepts that are alien to their audience, they need to work doubly-hard to give their audience the tools they need for their fiction to work with and flow from those mechanics. IMO the 4th edition mechanics were a hugely valuable experiment in RPG design. Absolutely not the right experiment to conduct with a broad-audience, classic-fantasy RPG like D&D, but I appreciate that they tried it and expect that learning has and will continue to flow from that experiment for some time.