Jack99
Adventurer
How do you know what MOST 4e players will do?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E 4e players, why do you want 5e?
- Thread starter B.T.
- Start date
How do you know what MOST 4e players will do?
I am a believer that 4e fixed far more than it got wrong, but there are four reasons I want a 5e.
1) THE AEDU system sucks. Not because of realism, or verisimilitude or not because it doesn't "feel like D&D". It does those things just fine. The reason it sucks is because at-wills aren't basic enough to use every round narratively, encounters are always blown at the start of the encounter, and dailies miss a lot of the time, and it is depressing to have to wait 2 weeks every time you want to use it. There simply aren't enough utilities for non-combat play.
2) Monster hp and defenses are too inflated. That's the primary reason it takes forever to finish a fight. Sure, sometimes you don't want a monster to go down before it had its moment of glory. But the 4e designers made it so every monster doesn't go down before its moment of glory, and the PC's can recover from it. That makes everything a tedious grind.
3) Magic items need to be like they were in 1e/2e.
4) It is impossible to do 4e without the grid, or at least I found it so. I simply don't want to set up minis for every minor combat encounter.
1) THE AEDU system sucks. Not because of realism, or verisimilitude or not because it doesn't "feel like D&D". It does those things just fine. The reason it sucks is because at-wills aren't basic enough to use every round narratively, encounters are always blown at the start of the encounter, and dailies miss a lot of the time, and it is depressing to have to wait 2 weeks every time you want to use it. There simply aren't enough utilities for non-combat play.
2) Monster hp and defenses are too inflated. That's the primary reason it takes forever to finish a fight. Sure, sometimes you don't want a monster to go down before it had its moment of glory. But the 4e designers made it so every monster doesn't go down before its moment of glory, and the PC's can recover from it. That makes everything a tedious grind.
3) Magic items need to be like they were in 1e/2e.
4) It is impossible to do 4e without the grid, or at least I found it so. I simply don't want to set up minis for every minor combat encounter.
I forgot about this, but yes, this is a big thing too.
I think a recent interview said that 4e was designed so every player (and, extrapolated, every monster) got a moment to shine in every encounter, but that meant encounters have to last so many turns.
Where 5e is, supposedly, designed for the day. So, the wizard might shine in one fight by sleeping everybody, the rogue might shine the next, and the cleric the next, and so on.
Hopefully it actually ends up like that.
There's a great deal I like about 4e, but much like someone said upstream, more than any other edition it's reliant on a group of players who can really grok its machinery and what it's aiming for. Get a group who pore agonisingly over their character sheet options each time their turn comes up, and the game grinds to a crawl.
AEDU was an option worth exploring, and there's some wonderfully inventive content amongst the powers. But Essentials made it obvious that it's not the right structure for every character concept. While the pace of combat in 4e improved, almost every combat encounter remained this major, evening-defining thing instead of something that just happens along the way.
To wax a little lyrical, reading the 5e playtest material gave me a "prodigal son" vibe. It was as if D&D had been out exploring a curious and often fascinating pathway, but was now coming home. If it can become a system which my players are as comfortable with as I am, then I'll have every reason to pick it up.
AEDU was an option worth exploring, and there's some wonderfully inventive content amongst the powers. But Essentials made it obvious that it's not the right structure for every character concept. While the pace of combat in 4e improved, almost every combat encounter remained this major, evening-defining thing instead of something that just happens along the way.
To wax a little lyrical, reading the 5e playtest material gave me a "prodigal son" vibe. It was as if D&D had been out exploring a curious and often fascinating pathway, but was now coming home. If it can become a system which my players are as comfortable with as I am, then I'll have every reason to pick it up.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
Additionally, from a purely gamist standpoint I'd really like to see an embrace of the idea that you can balance a variety of different resource management systems and still achieve a good enough measure of balance. For my tastes its not enough that a Wizard feels different in play to a Fighter. Playing a Fighter and a Paladin should feel remarkably different on both a game play and thematic level. Make character resources embrace thematic elements of the class. A Paladin shouldn't feel like a hodge podge mixture of Fighter and Cleric. A Ranger should not feel like Fighter meets Druid meets Rogue. When I play a sorcerer I should feel like I'm channeling unbridled arcane power. Bat dung need not apply. The difference between Cleric and Wizard spell casting is a good start.
Of course maybe Diablo III has just infected my brain beyond all reckoning.
Of course maybe Diablo III has just infected my brain beyond all reckoning.
Mercurius
Legend
Without reading any of the replies, a couple things come to mind:
1) Modularity. The design approach of 5E just makes too much sense: You mean I can play either simple or complex? I can play "old school" or "new school"? The game is designed with a toolbox approach in mind? Sign me up.
2) Streamline Combat. I'm sick of four hour sessions with two combats taking three and half of those four hours. I enjoy combat, I enjoy 4E combat, but it takes too damn long. Couple this with modularity and I can play quick-and-dirty old school combat for small encounters and tactical 4E-style combat for major encounters.
Bonus reason: The New Shiny. I'm always game for a new edition of D&D. If I don't like it, I have half a dozen or so others to choose from.
1) Modularity. The design approach of 5E just makes too much sense: You mean I can play either simple or complex? I can play "old school" or "new school"? The game is designed with a toolbox approach in mind? Sign me up.
2) Streamline Combat. I'm sick of four hour sessions with two combats taking three and half of those four hours. I enjoy combat, I enjoy 4E combat, but it takes too damn long. Couple this with modularity and I can play quick-and-dirty old school combat for small encounters and tactical 4E-style combat for major encounters.
Bonus reason: The New Shiny. I'm always game for a new edition of D&D. If I don't like it, I have half a dozen or so others to choose from.
I'm pretty happy with 4e--my group just hit 17th level and we're planning on playing WotBS 4e all the way to the end of 30th level. I've found the combination of house rules I like, and I've particularly figured out how to play minor combats without the battle grid, which has helped a lot.
That said, there's some aspects of 4e that really bug me, and D&D.next already looks to be addressing:
* Verisimilitude. Everything in 4e is precisely specified using game rule jargon, which makes it really hard for my players to narrate their actions. This is a particular problem for high-level non-magical powers. It's not actually a problem for the tactical combat game, but it is a problem for the role-playing game, and I want to play both at the same time.
D&D.next's emphasis on prose descriptions and minimum jargon looks really great from this perspective.
* Exploration. 4e's use of the heavy-weight "encounter" as the primary building block of the game has some real strengths, but it's had some negative consequences. The biggest is that exploration feels tacked on in comparison. In particular, locations don't really feel like they live and breathe, and it's easy to get locked into a feeling of progressing from set piece to set piece. D&D.n seems to tackle this head on, from what I've seen of the playtest adventure.
* Fiddly bits. 4e combat throws around a lot of fiddly bonuses and durations, even moreso at high levels, and they can't really be house-ruled out. D&D.n might be addressing this. On the other hand, this sort of complexity is part of what makes 4e's tactical combat game so awesome. I'll take fiddly bits over boring combat any day.
That said, there's some aspects of 4e that really bug me, and D&D.next already looks to be addressing:
* Verisimilitude. Everything in 4e is precisely specified using game rule jargon, which makes it really hard for my players to narrate their actions. This is a particular problem for high-level non-magical powers. It's not actually a problem for the tactical combat game, but it is a problem for the role-playing game, and I want to play both at the same time.
D&D.next's emphasis on prose descriptions and minimum jargon looks really great from this perspective.
* Exploration. 4e's use of the heavy-weight "encounter" as the primary building block of the game has some real strengths, but it's had some negative consequences. The biggest is that exploration feels tacked on in comparison. In particular, locations don't really feel like they live and breathe, and it's easy to get locked into a feeling of progressing from set piece to set piece. D&D.n seems to tackle this head on, from what I've seen of the playtest adventure.
* Fiddly bits. 4e combat throws around a lot of fiddly bonuses and durations, even moreso at high levels, and they can't really be house-ruled out. D&D.n might be addressing this. On the other hand, this sort of complexity is part of what makes 4e's tactical combat game so awesome. I'll take fiddly bits over boring combat any day.
FreeXenon
American Male (he/him); INTP ADHD Introverted Geek
I posted this and received no response in WotC's boards... but...
I have a mixed feeling with what I am seeing at this point. Some good and some bad, but more bad than good. I love Themes and Backgrounds... I have goosebumps just thinking about it.
A sort of a Tiered approach to the rules set:
How I would really like to see Next developed is in a tiered fashion, and stop the edition bastardization I am seeing. =( Collections of rules could be set forth as a way to create campaign type. Low magic and gritty realism, use basic tier rules + theses modules; high fantasy use tier 3 minus these modules + these modules; horror use these modules; etc....
Tier 1: The root of the game caters to 1E/2E/Rules Lite/Narrativist/Gritty gamers who do not want a lot of rules and want to leave a lot to the DM/players to figure out or to narrate, but however simplified and streamlined with what WotC has learned of the game over the years. An example of which may be having most things set as an attribute check and giving with modifiers from there, which is kind of how it is now in Next with skills. Give guidelines and DC's appropriate to give the DM a set to how to do things so everyone is playing with the same expectations and range. If I extract those portions of Next that I see that are along those lines I like them. This part also will in include the rules that 1E/2E people will like along with Vancian spell casting and slow natural healing with magical dominance for healing.
Tier 2: This tier will look to adding complexity and rules standardization for combat maneuvers etc, and more complex or definite rules definition. Modules are added to add portions of 3E/4E elements to the game (within the scope of the new framework) for more character customization and rules options: themes and backgrounds, skills, alternative healing dials to change the way healing works (gritty -> 4E), etc, alternative spell casting methods, fighter martial powers
Tier3: a full on tactically complex and intensive, grid using rules like 4E with even more variants and alternative rules: fixed skill challenges, class powers, a healing surge method perhaps modifying the hd concept etc. more dials for dm's and players to use to tune their game.
The Tier 1 fighter would be as is in its current formish, simple and uncomplicated, and the Tier 3 would be more like the 4E fighter, with the option of having different levels of complexity based on DM or player choice. Since they are all built upon the same basic rules framework (DC's and resolution mechanics), but differing in their complexity and specificity, and presentation. For a lot of things between the different groups presentation of the rules and options are an issue, not necessarily the specific mechanics
I can get behind this and even be able to enjoy a rules lite and narrativist and old school game with a new streamlined and efficient rules set.
... or something along theses lines.
Just my humble thoughts.
I have a mixed feeling with what I am seeing at this point. Some good and some bad, but more bad than good. I love Themes and Backgrounds... I have goosebumps just thinking about it.
A sort of a Tiered approach to the rules set:
How I would really like to see Next developed is in a tiered fashion, and stop the edition bastardization I am seeing. =( Collections of rules could be set forth as a way to create campaign type. Low magic and gritty realism, use basic tier rules + theses modules; high fantasy use tier 3 minus these modules + these modules; horror use these modules; etc....
Tier 1: The root of the game caters to 1E/2E/Rules Lite/Narrativist/Gritty gamers who do not want a lot of rules and want to leave a lot to the DM/players to figure out or to narrate, but however simplified and streamlined with what WotC has learned of the game over the years. An example of which may be having most things set as an attribute check and giving with modifiers from there, which is kind of how it is now in Next with skills. Give guidelines and DC's appropriate to give the DM a set to how to do things so everyone is playing with the same expectations and range. If I extract those portions of Next that I see that are along those lines I like them. This part also will in include the rules that 1E/2E people will like along with Vancian spell casting and slow natural healing with magical dominance for healing.
Tier 2: This tier will look to adding complexity and rules standardization for combat maneuvers etc, and more complex or definite rules definition. Modules are added to add portions of 3E/4E elements to the game (within the scope of the new framework) for more character customization and rules options: themes and backgrounds, skills, alternative healing dials to change the way healing works (gritty -> 4E), etc, alternative spell casting methods, fighter martial powers
Tier3: a full on tactically complex and intensive, grid using rules like 4E with even more variants and alternative rules: fixed skill challenges, class powers, a healing surge method perhaps modifying the hd concept etc. more dials for dm's and players to use to tune their game.
The Tier 1 fighter would be as is in its current formish, simple and uncomplicated, and the Tier 3 would be more like the 4E fighter, with the option of having different levels of complexity based on DM or player choice. Since they are all built upon the same basic rules framework (DC's and resolution mechanics), but differing in their complexity and specificity, and presentation. For a lot of things between the different groups presentation of the rules and options are an issue, not necessarily the specific mechanics
I can get behind this and even be able to enjoy a rules lite and narrativist and old school game with a new streamlined and efficient rules set.
... or something along theses lines.
Just my humble thoughts.
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
This is such a silly question, but I'll answer it: because it's D&D.
I generally like playing D&D, like the types of games you can run with it, like the fact that it's almost universally played and recognized.
I play 4E, and have played every edition as they came out. I hope to like 5E and play that.
You obviously don't like 4E, and have thrown out many of the key arguments about it that I haven't found to be true, so let's turn that question around: why do you care about it?
I would imagine for the same reasons I do. We just want different things out of the next edition, but we still want to play D&D.
I generally like playing D&D, like the types of games you can run with it, like the fact that it's almost universally played and recognized.
I play 4E, and have played every edition as they came out. I hope to like 5E and play that.
You obviously don't like 4E, and have thrown out many of the key arguments about it that I haven't found to be true, so let's turn that question around: why do you care about it?
I would imagine for the same reasons I do. We just want different things out of the next edition, but we still want to play D&D.
I'll keep my answer short.
I love 1e/2e however it has always felt like an incomplete game.
I loathe 3e and feel as if it's too codified and rigid and rules heavy.
I like 4e but feel as if it misses the mark on a few things where 1e/2e excelled.
So for me, a blending of 1e/2e and 4e would be the perfect game.
I love 1e/2e however it has always felt like an incomplete game.
I loathe 3e and feel as if it's too codified and rigid and rules heavy.
I like 4e but feel as if it misses the mark on a few things where 1e/2e excelled.
So for me, a blending of 1e/2e and 4e would be the perfect game.
