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

[Frusticolus]

Yeah. It's a bit lighter. So you like the way spells were done compared to the 4e method?

I think they can be a bit clumsy because of the tracking you need to do vs. single use expenditure in 4e. The trade-off for that is more flexibility and distinction between different classes though, which 4e felt a little lacking in. So I think from the player perspective it's comes out ahead.

From a DM perspective I kinda hate dealing with spell slots, I already have enough things to keep track of mid-combat. I never DMed in 4e, but in 5e I find unique traits more valuable than spells on creatures, because it's less to remember/track, and has a greater impact on the "feel" of the creature.

 

[Nebulous]

From a DM perspective I kinda hate dealing with spell slots, I already have enough things to keep track of mid-combat. I never DMed in 4e, but in 5e I find unique traits more valuable than spells on creatures, because it's less to remember/track, and has a greater impact on the "feel" of the creature.

A lot of people aren't pleased with that either. I don't mind so much for the versatility you get with spells, but it would be nice to see a balance with some more unique traits. 4e went a long ways toward making monsters extremely individual.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I have played BE of BECMI, AD&D 2e, 3e, 3.5 4e and 4e essentials, so I wouldn't say I have started with 4e by any means. I have run several good 4e campaigns though, and am in the middle of running one now. I must say the response to my 5e game has been really good. I think they only thing they missed a bit was healing up after combat. Mostly, they really liked the pacing of the game.

4e went a bit like this: |----combat-----|-rpg-|----combat-----|-rpg-|----combat-----|-rpg-|----combat-----|
5e goes a bit more like this: |-combat-|-rpg-|-combat-|-rpg-|-combat-|-rpg-|-combat-|-rpg-|-combat-|-rpg-|-combat-|

In other words, in the same amount of time you have more time for roleplaying, and you get to have more combat encounters.

I haven't run 5e beyond level 3 yet though, so a bit early to say how it will turn out in the end. It looks really promising. There was little slowdown going from level 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3.

 

[jimmifett]

I'm played 2e via PC games, 3.x, and loved 4e.

5e has fully stolen my love from every other edition as both player and DM.

 

[Eric V]

Well, I didn't start with 4e; I started with AD&D and played all editions.

We have converted to 5e and really like it.

When we speak about comparing editions though; our group basically concedes that 4e was better in virtually every way than 5e except in 2 deal-breakers: 1) Prep time/versatility for the DM and (especially) 2) combat length.

Our group is spread out over 2 countries, so we play via Skype and Maptool. 4e started with Keep on the Shadowfell, Thunderspire Labyrinth, then Madness at Gardmore Abbey. Some homebrew, then Demon Queen's Enclave, then we started Assault on Nightwyrm Fortress with the idea that it would lead to Moil.

It just got to be too much.

Addressing point 1) Making tokens for all the monsters/NPCs was a ton of work. I have made twice as many tokens for 5e in about half the time. Similarly, while I love how monsters fee more individual in 4e (not "sack of hp" syndrome), the idea of prepping a dozen tokens (we use macros for all the math stuff) for 'random encounters' was a bit overkill in terms of prep. We also didn't get bang for our buck as DMs, and that is related to...

2) Combat length. For the longest time, I couldn't understand why people said that you can't roleplay in 4e; of course you can! Whenever you want! What could they mean by saying that? Then I saw the group go from level 1 to level 18...and sure enough, the roleplaying kept diminishing. Now, 2 of my players are terrible at it, but the two who are great also "diminished" in terms of roleplaying, and I couldn't figure out why.

It dawned on me that, after a long day at work, you only have so much cognitive energy available for gaming from 21:00 to 24:00 with work the next day. And 4e demands that a lot of that energy be spent on all the wonderful tactical options available during combat. Said combats lasting well over an hour each one, sometimes 2. If I wanted more than one combat in a session, it meant all we did was fight.

Now, it's a great tactical system, but the length of the fights stole the drama from them. Combined with people not making quips and such during combat, it just turned into an accountancy exercise.

We love so much about 4e: The variety of classes (my fav toon was a Githzerai Avenger, and I can't really recreate her now :/ ), the balance between classes that led to the best teamwork we've seen, the tight rules that allowed us to relax and enjoy the game (I found people argued too much with vaguer rules in previous systems, and saying "I'm the DM, it's my call" doesn't always work when playing with your 2 older brothers!), the unique monsters, skill challenges (no, seriously!), rituals for non-combat stuff...and more.

But it ended up not being as much fun as we got higher in levels. I know that's a complaint a lot of people have had about previous editions, but it was different in 4e: Keeping track of all the bonuses, all the conditions, all the resistances...it was too much, especially online, and despite how awesome maptools is for tracking. People always ended up "Oh wait, I forgot I had +5 to damage..." and it just killed the drama.

So we switched to 5e, where less is more (Adv/Dis as a mechanic instead of modifiers), and we can devote more time to roleplaying. I ran a small delve at high level (12) to see if it would slow down like 4e; it did, but not nearly as much, and a lot of it had to do with not being familiar with toons for a one-off.

As a comparison: I play both Heroscape and Heroclix. 'Clix is the superior game in a lot of ways, with more complex rules, more diversity, etc. 'Scape has just enough differentiation between units to make them feel different, and plays faster and smoother. While I like both, I never complain about a game of 'Scape, whereas a game of 'CLix can drag...

In the end, 4e was like a great love that was wonderful for a while...but just didn't work out in the end over an irreconcilable issue, so we had to break up. I'm happy with 5e. I can see a future with 5e, and there's nothing to divide us, but...sometimes, when I am prepping a mod, I remember 4e, and wonder what might have been...

 

[Pickles JG]

Our group is spread out over 2 countries, so we play via Skype and Maptool.
<snip>
We love so much about 4e: The variety of classes (my fav toon was a Githzerai Avenger, and I can't really recreate her now :/ ), the balance between classes that led to the best teamwork we've seen, the tight rules that allowed us to relax and enjoy the game (I found people argued too much with vaguer rules in previous systems, and saying "I'm the DM, it's my call" doesn't always work when playing with your 2 older brothers!), the unique monsters, skill challenges (no, seriously!), rituals for non-combat stuff...and more.

I started playing 5e to play over Google hangouts & we play things that to not require maps. I still play 4e though but it's lost some of its lustre as it can drag.

As to your Avenger - have you looked at the Justice Paladin - it seems to have a lot of Avenger features. The Githzerai is more of an issue but playing a skinny human would work .

 

[Rhenny]

I started with 1e and DM/played all editions. With 4e, I always over prep. We never get as far as I plan. In a way, that's easy because I always have possibilities for future sessions, but the game certainly feels like an encounter by encounter slow road.

With 5e we get through more and I find it much easier to improvise and change on the fly.

 

[Eric V]

As to your Avenger - have you looked at the Justice Paladin - it seems to have a lot of Avenger features. The Githzerai is more of an issue but playing a skinny human would work .

I did see it...but it doesn't quite work. Since the Avenger was Wis-based, I had her as someone who read people very well, but was blunt and obtuse in her interactions with them. Similarly, she was a lithe, ninja-type (Zealous Assassin paragon path) which isn't really a build the current paladin subclass can accommodate. :/

If I could build a variant, that gave monk ac bonuses and used Wis instead of Cha for spells...that might work.

 

[Eric V]

With 5e we get through more and I find it much easier to improvise and change on the fly.

Definitely this, yes.

 

[the Jester]

I started with B/X, and have played every version of D&D proper* since.

5e looks like my favorite, but it's too soon to be sure- my 5e game has only gone up to 4th level so far. I love how fast and loose it is; how powerful low-level pcs are without being unkillable; how it alleviates a lot of the traditional problems with D&D pre-4e (such as reliance on a dedicated healer, LFQW, weak rogues, etc); how it flattens the math and re-enables early D&D playstyles (e.g. "Everyone Starts at First Level"); how it keeps monsters interesting without making them too complicated; etc.

The one area where 4e really shines for me that 5e feels like a minor step backward is in the ease and depth of monster creation. But some of that- the ease part, anyway- comes from how tightly wound the math is, which creates it's own problems (you really can't run ES@1st once the pcs are above about 3rd level without the low-level guys being pretty useless, for instance).

Anyhow, once I've gotten my game up to the higher levels, I feel it's going to be clearer to me whether 5e will maintain its current status as King D&D for me. And obviously, that's a matter of taste anyhow.

*I am not counting Pathfinder; it tuned up 3e, but by the time it came out, I was all too aware of (what I consider to be) the warts of 3e, and PF didn't seem to fix them- rather, it exacerbated them IMHO. It's great for people who like the stuff 3e was great at, but didn't do it for me.