D&D 4E 4e players, why do you want 5e?

Tequila Sunrise

Adventurer
Before reading the play test, I didn't want 5e. I was actually hoping that I'd hate it, because 4e is superb in pretty much every way I care for, and I'd rather not be tempted to drop $90 on a new game.

After reading the play test, I'm not sure there's enough to hate. But there's nothing there to entice me, and quite a few details that made me roll my eyes.

5e's one new innovation -- and I use the term loosely -- seems to be static AC and attacks. Sort of, because magical items still grant bonuses -- including shields. :erm:

So for my part, there's nothing here that makes me excited to buy 5e, or even play it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

avin

First Post
Can't consider myself a "4E DM", as I GM every system and edition I can out my hands in... and that's already a reason.

I could add more, seeing from 4E's angle: step into a less gamist edition with what seems to be a streamlined combat.
 

I like having all of 4E's powers and options, as do the veteran gamers in the group. I think the new players would be happier with simpler characters, but hacking something together is too time-consuming for me. D&D Next, based on its stated design goals, could be the solution: more complicated characters for those who prefer that, and simpler characters for those who are new or don't like having all those options.

I hear the Essential books contains versions of classes that are much simpler to play. Those may be perfect for your players.

If regular 4E is more your thing, then consider having the new players play Archer Rangers. All they need to know is quarry and duel strike! Seriously, if they do that every turn they'll be near optimal!
 

pemerton

Legend
4e Classic (4eC) sings with the right group, but requires a high degree of player buy-in to get the results that I want out of it. I tend to view 4eC as a visceral game about violently capable individuals who set out willingly or not to irrevocably enact change in their worlds who end up becoming mythic figures in their own right. This is highly reinforced in the assumed setting of the game with the backdrop of the Dawn War, tales of the fall of civilizations, and highly active Gods, Demon Princes, Primordials, etc. 4eC presents a world on fire in desperate need of heroes. Thematically it strikes the same currents that Greek Myth, the Diablo games, and Exalted does though tied to a more mortal perspective.

Of course to really embrace these aspects players need to be able to shift between awareness of the game's narrative to engaging its combat encounter mini-game while remaining focused on the underlying fiction. 4eC asks a lot out of the players, but I find the relatively unique combination of satisfying my narrative jones while engaging my tactical/strategic mind incredibly refreshing.
This exactly captures what I enjoy about 4e. The combination of mythic theme with crunchy RPG mechanics. I would XP you if I could, but am reduced to QFT.
 

Iron Sky

Procedurally Generated
In RL games, my main complaint is the general feel of the game. After taking a break from it to play Dark Heresy, Warhammer Fantasy, Rogue Trader, Epic, I noticed how much 4e's "bones" stuck out during play.

In all those other systems, I play my character, I do whatever seems right and every once in a while, the mechanics popped to the surface to resolve something, then I was back in my character. In 4e, because everything has such a rigidly defined mechanical system, it's hard to see your character beyond the bounds of "what he can do" according to his character sheet.

4e is like sitting inside a car as you travel through a city - it's easy, comfortable, you know where you can go and you can't and it's a great way to get around... but you always remember you are in a car. With other systems, you are in the city, walking through its streets and alleys. They may not be as effective, efficient, or clean, but you're too busy being immersed in the environment and culture to notice.

I still think 4e is better in most ways than previous editions I've played, but it's not a question of 5e vs previous D&D editions because I have little desire to play any of them any more; it's 5e vs all the other systems that I've been enjoying lately.

To get my dollars I'd like to see 5e keep the following from 4e:

*small PC self-heals available to all
*monsters playable with statblocks alone
*fast monster design
*(mostly) power-balanced classes
*no 1/3 of a book covering spells - each its own rule in effect
*removal of high-level world-design-breaking and/or game-breaking spells (teleport, wish, higher level divinations, polymorph, better-at-X-class-than-X-class-with-a-spell spells)
*removal of computation-intensive ability damage/level drain
*save-save-save-or die replacing save-or-die

Plus:

*remove "skill gaps" with actions not covered by any available skill (sailing? devising battle plans? crafting?)
*incentive for combat/situational improvisation and good role-playing
*rituals were a good idea, make them usable in play (reduced spell-casting times for exploration rituals primarily)
*rules for high-level, game-shifting rules (armies, ruling kingdoms/religions/cabals, etc)

I'd like to see the following go away:

*rest-to-full hp
*magic items built into the math
*magic items so common they lose their magic
*feat-fixed math
*thousands of worthless and/or boring feats and magic items contrasted to a handful of near-auto-picks
*skill challenges
*casually easy resurrections
*gp as second xp track, required to balance game math
 

Raith5

Adventurer
4e is like sitting inside a car as you travel through a city - it's easy, comfortable, you know where you can go and you can't and it's a great way to get around... but you always remember you are in a car. With other systems, you are in the city, walking through its streets and alleys. They may not be as effective, efficient, or clean, but you're too busy being immersed in the environment and culture to notice.

Nice metaphor and I partly agree, but immersion IME is much more to do with your DM and co players than system. I also found the 4th skill system to be more usable than 3rd ed (or previous editions) therefore enabling much more meaningful interactions with the world. I also much prefer the 4th mythology and planar cosmology to previous iterations.

But yes I find terminology like squares to create (a wholly necessary) disconnect between the player, the PC and the world.

I agree with many of your points about what DDN should keep from 4th but you are right about the silly number of feats (and powers) in 4th! Levelling up is almost a chore!
 

Tallifer

Hero
I just had a great session playing with the Fourth Edition with some old friends over Skype. It reminded me of how much I love almost everything about the Fourth Edition. Every character could do something effective in every encounter. (Some other good points had more to do with the dungeon master and players than with the system.)

Playing Pathfinder recently also made me love the Fourth Edition more. The sorcerer alternated between dominating encounters to whining about undead or for a stop for the day. The cleric went from slaughtering undead to complaining about burning standard actions to heal the weak party members because the fighter and the ranger would not and could not defend them. The bard was a joke. The alchemist was a joke. The treasure was random junk which suited no one except the half orc fighter every time.
 

Bobbum Man

Banned
Banned
And that includes the name "D&D". I would be deliriously happy if WotC continued/sold/republished 4e under some other name, to be honest - "DragonQuest", maybe, since they own the trademark etc.

I love this idea. So much so, that I kind of wish WotC had put 4E out under the name "Dragonquest" instead of "Dungeon & Dragons".

It would have prevented Pathfinder from happening (WotC would still have their market share, and Paizo would still have Dragons & Dungeon magazines) and they would have had a safe testing ground for the mechanics before introducing them into D&D.

Sure, there would still been cries of: "OMFG! This isn't Dragonquest! WotC ruined it foreverrrr!" But that would have been...what...like two guys.
 

SSquirrel

Explorer
I love 4E. I don't want a new edition coming along and destroying what we have w/DDI b/c that is a great way to be able to encapsulate everything about the edition. They aren't exactly taking my thoughts on not moving to a new edition tho, so I'm interested in it b/c it will be the next version of D&D. Will it better? Who knows. I know that I want to see it grow and assess the changes along the way. 4E w/conditions that are better managed and math fixes built in instead of feat taxing us is really about all I would need. Combat could be speedier in general, but I'm ok w/the battle mat.
 

Let me respond with a little background:

I played 3E since its release, and it was the first D&D edition I ever bought into. I switched to 4E because it fixed lots of things I didn't like about 3E: characters had actual honest-to-Pelor hit points at first level, and the powers gave everyone cool things they could do all the time.

The reason I'm playtesting D&D Next isn't because of things I don't like in 4E, it's because of the people I play 4E with currently. I run a game with my wife and her fellow PhD students from the local university, several of whom have never played D&D (or any pnp RPGs) before in their lives. When they take their turns, they often stare in confusion at the character sheets and can take five or even ten minutes to make a decision and complete their turn, usually including prompts or tips from myself or other veteran gamers in the group. There are several reasons for this: the characters' multiple powers and options overwhelm them, the individual steps required to complete each power confuse them, and they often resort to the simplest action or one they've done before and are familiar with in order to move on from their turn. They're having fun being part of the group and playing with us, but I know it can be frustrating for them.

I like having all of 4E's powers and options, as do the veteran gamers in the group. I think the new players would be happier with simpler characters, but hacking something together is too time-consuming for me. D&D Next, based on its stated design goals, could be the solution: more complicated characters for those who prefer that, and simpler characters for those who are new or don't like having all those options.

What I've seen in the playtest is a start, but I need to see more.

Welcome to ENWorld.

And to Echo [MENTION=51168]MichaelSomething[/MENTION], you might want to look into 4e Essentials (and the Elementalist Sorceror from Heroes of the Elemental Chaos).

The two 4e fighter variants (Slayer and Knight) have two stances each of which they are in one at any given time (and if that's too many being in Poised Assault for +1 to hit is never a bad choice). They attack using melee basic attacks (or ranged basic where necessary). Their encounter power is power strike (if they have several encounter powers they have multiple uses of power strike) which does an extra 1[w] (more at higher level) after you hit, so they don't need to change from an MBA. No daily attack powers - static bonusses to replace them. The Slayer is a two handed striker who just gains a flat damage bonus. The Knight is a sword and board defender who uses a defender aura instead of marking - everyone adjacent to him is marked, and he gets a free attack on an Opportunity Action meaning no need to worry about a 1/round limit. So the decisions are where to move and what to hit.

The Scout Ranger (two weapon fighting) is similar. Choice of stances, melee basic attack, power strike. With a second attack from offhand weapon if you hit on your own turn. It's slightly more complex because there's no vanilla stance and you get some rangery tricks out of combat.

The Sentinel Druid is dead easy unless unleashing a daily. No shapechange - you have a pet and move together. One of your at wills is for you to attack, the other is for your pet to attack. Your encounter powers mean you both attack. Healing word is healing word...

The Hunter Ranger (archery) is slightly more complex. You have stances like a scout. Your at wills are all trick shots rolled as ranged basic attacks (ignore cover, slide, knock prone, slow, blanket an area in arrows for an effective burst 1) and yoru encounter powers are more powerful debilitating attacks (daze or immobilise - blind at high levels). No dailies and the encounter powers again are all the same. Still, it's still, pick or keep a stance, pick a target, decide how you're going to make their life miserable with a list of things arrows can do. And you also get ranger tricks outside combat.

Finally from Essentials there's the thief. Who attacks using a melee basic attack (dex based) or ranged basic attack, and uses anything from his list of tricks as move actions in an attempt to get combat advantage. The encounter powers are all Backstab (+3 to hit + damage if you have CA and are close). Again, not overwhelming in terms of options and a gem of a class.

And from Heroes of the Elemental Chaos there's the Elementalist Sorceror a.k.a. Mr Blast Mage. No daily attack powers. Two at will attacks (one's an elemental bolt of their chosen element, the other one's an AoE elemental blast). And their encounter power is to make things bigger - an extra d10 damage and extra target, plus minor thematic rider based on their element.

Do those sound a little simpler and moer manageable?
 

Remove ads

Top