D&D 4E 4e players who converted to 5th edition

[Nebulous]

Burning Wheel can resolve the whole mess in a single roll, using the RAW... Fight! is an optional module, and a hefty penalty on a bloody versus is more than adequate... Or one could split the difference and each one-on-one is a separate bloody versus, in which case, a group of 4 can do it in about an hour.

And d6 Fantasy can do it, using the many on one rules, as a couple rolls, as well.

And 5e can do it! "'After a long, bloody battle, you...uh...win."

 

[ruleslawyer]

First and foremost, I think that because of the battlemap and the way the powers work, 4e gave us newcomers the impression that it was more of a tactical wargame than anything else. Although roleplaying did happen, it was sparse and squished between large segments of combat. Having played 8-10 sessions of 5e with a small party (only the two of us with a sporadic third player, but better than just me) the roleplaying feels a lot more intuitive, and it feels like the system encourages creative thinking during combat (rather than simply using whatever option seemed the best on my character sheet). For that, I prefer 5th to 4th. On the other hand, because I started 4e when 5e was just about to be released, I was able to trawl through all the different character creation options and make exactly what I wanted, which is still missing from 5e (at the moment).

I think that the 8-hour battle is a perfect (if a bit extreme) example of how new players can view the 4e system and take it to a ridiculous extreme: The character sheet and powers focused on combat, so we had a lot of battles... And as I leveled up and got more powers, there was even more combat for me to use them in, and it just snowballed. Sure it was fun, but it became a battle simulator rather than a roleplaying game.

This is an interesting perspective. I have DMed new-to-D&D players using 4e, and they simply tuned out a bit when dealing with the combat options, to the point where I had to choose their actions for them half the time. My problem with the system was simply that it was largely inappropriate for casual gamers. The same players aren't all that better at dealing with tactical combat using 5e, but their range of options is smaller and, most critically, forced movement and positioning are de-emphasized.

So, in short (right before my game imploded due to personal reasons), the players were happy with 5e's significantly reduced emphasis on tactical combat. On the negative side, they were not so happy with the reduced healing rates, especially since no one wanted to play a cleric. (The 4e group got by on bard and warlord dips.)

 

[Rhenny]

So this got me thinking, in the past few 5e sessions of Lost Mine i've been rolling for random wilderness encounters. With the DMG last night for the first time, I randomized Forest and Mountain encounters, and then actually rolled randomly on the list (I just assigned numbers). I capped it at d10 (any higher would have been a ridiculously hard Challenge). Well, I rolled a 1 and randomly rolled a jackal. No biggie. But it could have been an ogre or a chimera or a gorgon, etc.

I guess my point is that in 4e, throwing in random encounters could drastically lengthen a scenario. They're great fun, i mean there was so much tension as i was rolling because I told the players how this was going to work. 5e is more streamlined and a little faster, so throwing in one or two random encounters isn't going to take up a whole evening of play.

Yes. I never used random encounters with 4e.

I like the entire feel of 5e where the party can sometimes encounter less or more difficult fights. As a DM, I feel that there is a lot of freedom to design more organic encounters that fit the story with 5e. I like how the range of options has broadened due to bounded accuracy.

In 4e, it seemed as if most encounters were balanced to make the party expend enough resources and start breaking into their second winds and healing surges, thus rarely did the party encounter just 2 guards that they could take out without spending any resources. This was also because the game was designed to focus on the encounter rather than the adventuring day. This is not bad, just different.

 

[Nebulous]

In 4e, it seemed as if most encounters were balanced to make the party expend enough resources and start breaking into their second winds and healing surges, thus rarely did the party encounter just 2 guards that they could take out without spending any resources. This was also because the game was designed to focus on the encounter rather than the adventuring day. This is not bad, just different.

Right, it's not bad, just different. Personally, the flow of 5e is far more supportive to my playstyle and story-based game than carefully balanced combat encounters.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I know this is based on an earlier edition than asked for, but it seems this is also appreciated.

I started playing DnD with 3E, even though I was familiar with a lot of 2E rules thanks to Baldur's Gate (I was actually confused as to where THAC0 went the first time I played the pen-and-paper version). Grand total, I've probably seen the ruleset from every edition from 2 on and have played Pathfinder.

Overall, there are some things I don't like about 5e, mainly related to how the bonuses are handled and how they make it a little less easier to really make preparation truly count. At the same time, I have to admit I love the simplification of what I have seen and how it seems set up to avoid the pitfalls of getting too overcomplicated (something Pathfinder is falling prey to). It also seems to, as stated in the post just above mine, support a story-based style a lot easier.

 

[Rhenny]

Right, it's not bad, just different. Personally, the flow of 5e is far more supportive to my playstyle and story-based game than carefully balanced combat encounters.

Me too. I like unfolding more of the story each session. After switching to 5e, it actually shocked me how much story we could develop in even a short session. With 5e, I've been able to have even 1 hour sessions that balance combat, interaction and exploration. To me, that becomes more satisfying than spending 1 hour resolving a combat encounter.

 

[aramis erak]

And 5e can do it! "'After a long, bloody battle, you...uh...win."

Not in the rules-as-written.

 

[designbot]

Not in the rules-as-written.

Actually, you can handle this with the mob rules on page 250 of the 5e DMG.

 

[the Jester]

For the record, my epic 4e game has the party leading a growing army of around 1,000 and conquering the world, and I've worked out a pretty easy and intuitive system for it using modified swarm rules (each unit of approximately 100 counts as a swarm). So far it's going swimmingly.

 

[jayoungr]

the only complaint either has had so far is that they wish at will powers and max on crits came over from 4e

Cantrips basically are at-will powers, so the spellcasters don't have to miss them, at least.