7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?

When asked what he was working on, WotC's Chris Perkins revealed a couple of juicy tidbits. They're not much, but they're certainly tantalizing. Initially, he said that "Our marketing team has a big reveal in the works", and followed that up separately with "Right now I'm working on the next seven years of D&D stories". What all that might mean is anybody's guess, but it sounds like there are plans for D&D stretching into the foreseeable future! Thanks to Barantor for the scoop!

 

[Iosue]

In light of 3E it's easy to look back at a percentile system like RM and see it as obviously not D&D, but when RM was written (early 80s) D&D wasn't a d20 system. Thief skills used percentages, clerical turning used a d20 in AD&D but 2d6 in B/X, and Moldvay's examples of improvisation involved assigning percentage chances - @Iosue will be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the idea of a stat test rolled on a d20 was introduced in the Expert rules rather than Basic.

I'm at work, so no books, but I almost 100% positive that this was actually Moldvay Basic, in the first paragraph of "Dungeon Mastering As A Fine Art." Percentage chances were suggested for improvising, well, just the chances of something; like surviving a jump into a chasm. For more character-centered chances, d20-roll-under-ability-score was the suggestion.

I don't find the language of "breaking from tradition" very helpful, though. It is very normative, but on no very clear foundation.

For instance, 3E changed the rule that hit dice and CON bonus stopped at name level. It changed the rule that a wizard can't use a sword (s/he can, just with a -4 (?) to hit).

Again, at work, no books, but I'm almost 100% certain that wizards using swords with a -4 non-proficient penalty was in 1e. The list of approved weapons by class was not a hard and fast rule about what a character could use in play, but a list of weapons that characters could choose from to spend their WPs on.

All revisions to D&D involve changes. But classifying them into ones that break with tradition and ones that don't is fraught. Frankly, it strikes me as ex post projection onto the past.

Perhaps the better term, the one used by the 4e designers, is "pushing the envelope."

 

[billd91]

Again, at work, no books, but I'm almost 100% certain that wizards using swords with a -4 non-proficient penalty was in 1e. The list of approved weapons by class was not a hard and fast rule about what a character could use in play, but a list of weapons that characters could choose from to spend their WPs on.

Close. The penalty in 1e was actually -5 for magic users using weapons with which they weren't proficient.

 

[pemerton]

You crackin' wise, pemerton?

I wasn't meaning to! I think it's still pretty early in 5e's run. The implications of 3E for play took a while to emerge, and I think that will be the same for 5e, won't it?

I'll go back to the example of Inspiration. I think it's the most interesting new action resolution mechanic in 5e, and is tightly coupled with the PC build mechanics (ie background) in a way that is innovative for D&D. But I'm not kidding when I say I've seen almost no discussion of it.

my impression is that default 5e essentially facilitates much the same kind of play that 4e facilitates: generally cinematic playstyle, going from encounter scene to encounter scene, facing level-appropriate encounters of varying difficulty, but even with difficult encounters it's easy to go down, but difficult to actually die, creating climatic fights that are suspenseful and interesting, but weighted just enough that the heroes triumph. Combat is much swingier at low levels, and 1st level characters in particular are somewhat fragile, compared to 4e, but on the whole much of the game plays like the above. If you're new to D&D, and don't really know what you want from the game, that's generally the kind of game you'll get.

Thanks, that's clearly stated and makes sense!

What's your view of the default "story progression" (if any?). And also of the way non-combat works (given the absence of a formal skill challenge mechanic)?

One can largely abandon or stretch the idea of level appropriate encounters and increase the lethality accordingly. Or even maintain using those encounter guidelines but reducing the available healing using variant rules to create a grittier game, if not quite a more lethal game. 5e makes an attempt to facilitate many kinds of play, at least to some degree.

What's your view of the mathematical balance?

To theoretical observation it looks fairly tightly honed (and the spell damage expressions, just to pick on one example, look sufficiently non-aesthetically motivated that the motivation has to be something else, which would be maths). But what about nova-ing (in a context of asymmetric resource suites)? Are there systemic tools to handle this, or does it rely on GM control over pacing?

Final question about maths - how have you found the high-level saves issue? I was one of those whose heart sank a little when the fighter's indomitable went from "always on" to rationed. Legitimate concern or needless worry?

 

[pemerton]

I'm at work, so no books, but I almost 100% positive that this was actually Moldvay Basic, in the first paragraph of "Dungeon Mastering As A Fine Art." Percentage chances were suggested for improvising, well, just the chances of something; like surviving a jump into a chasm. For more character-centered chances, d20-roll-under-ability-score was the suggestion.

I'm now back with my books, and so can confirm that you're part right - you're correct that it's Moldvay Basic (call-out to [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] - I was wrong in my attribution upthread of this mechanic to Expert). But you got the wrong paragraph: it's on page B60, under the heading you mention, but under a different heading for the percentage-chance example (the percentage-chance chasm is under "That's not in the rules!", whereas a d20 stat check isunder "There's always a chance.")

I'm almost 100% certain that wizards using swords with a -4 non-proficient penalty was in 1e. The list of approved weapons by class was not a hard and fast rule about what a character could use in play, but a list of weapons that characters could choose from to spend their WPs on.

I've never heard this interpretation before.

The table on PHB p 19 is headed "Armour and Weapons Permitted", and p 25 says "Magic-users . . . can wear no armour and have few weapons they can use'.

Page 36, under headings "Weapons" and "Weapon Proficiency", says "The choice of weapons used by your character might be circumscribed by the class of your character . . . At the start, you character will be able to employ but a limited number of weapons. . . . If proficiency with any given weapon is not held by the character, it is used at a penalty as shown on the table which follows." (For minutiae completists, the wizard non-proficiency penalty is -5.)

There is a degree of confusion (or at least uncertainty) on p 36, because "employ" (which is a synonym of "use") is used to mean "use with proficiency", whereas six lines later there is reference to "using at a penalty for non-proficiency". I see how that first occurence could be read back into the table heading on p 19 (ie "permitted" meaning "permitted for proficiency" rather than "permitted to use at all"). I think it would be more of a stretch to read it into p 25 - the non-use of weapons is in the same breath as the non-wearing of armour, which suggests to me that it can't be done, not just that it can be done but with a penalty.

The 2nd ed AD&D PHB (p 30) says that "wizards are severely restricted in the weapons they can use." Given that weapon proficiencies are optional in this edition, I don't think that the restriction on wizard weapon use is most naturally read as an aspect of the proficiency rules, although that would be a reasonable way to develop the system.

Was this ever settled one way or the other back in the day, or was it just a matter of table variations?

 

[Iosue]

I wasn't meaning too! I think it's still pretty early in 5e's run. The implications of 3E for play took a while to emerge, and I think that will be the same for 5e, won't it?

To be honest...I don't know. On one hand, it seems almost a fait accompli that there will be emergent design drift, like in every other edition. On the other hand, since the redesign of 2e into 3e, the game has seen 5 revisions (3.5, 4e, PF, 4eE, 5e). 3e was very much a reaction to 2e. Likewise 4e was a reaction to 3e. 5e...is a reaction to 4e, but looked much further back than other editions, I think. 3e and 4e were all about taking the game where it hadn't been before. 5e is, for both good and ill, about boldly going where D&D has gone before. Also, 3e was very focused on being a rules-as-physics simulator. 4e was very focused being a tightly balanced, encounter based game. 5e offers both in somewhat diluted forms, but isn't about being either of those. 5e is very much a throwback, because it's not really designed to be about anything, except what the group wants to put into it. It's like, there undoubtedly broken combinations to be found via combining multiclassing and feats. But, both are completely optional, and explicitly called out as so, so it's very much caveat emptor.

I'll go back to the example of Inspiration. I think it's the most interesting new action resolution mechanic in 5e, and is tightly coupled with the PC build mechanics (ie background) in a way that is innovative for D&D. But I'm not kidding when I say I've seen almost no discussion of it.

Inspiration is one of those ideally placed mechanics. There are undoubtedly groups that say, "Inspiration? Forget that!", and they can do that because while it has a mechanical expression, it is not mechanically necessary. Other groups just use it as a benny, a use that as old as the RPG hills -- e.g., "That was hilarious! Here, have some free advantage to distribute as you like!" I think the vast majority of people are using it like this, which is why you aren't hearing much discussion. Finally there's the opposite side of the spectrum from the first group: these are the folks that take those Bonds, Flaws, and Traits seriously! The DMs in these groups are very careful to distribute Inspiration when dramatically, thematically, and characteristically appropriate. The players, I imagine, are diligent in describing the effect of the inspiration in the game fiction. But I think this is a very small subset of the D&D population.

If there's one thing that I find especially distinctive about 5e, it's this. So much of the game just feels like, "Push this throttle as far as you are comfortable, and then leave it there."

What's your view of the default "story progression" (if any?). And also of the way non-combat works (given the absence of a formal skill challenge mechanic)?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by story progression. As far as non-combat, again this is something you can throttle up or down. My group likes to wing it, with me using a lot of random rolls, because we're used to B/X, so we don't really use the social interaction rules in the DMG. But if someone really likes having mechanics for that, they are there. There are the downtime rules that give PCs things to do between adventures. And of course as you know the Bonds, Traits, Flaws, create character hooks that encourage players to be proactive in the world, rather than reactive to whatever the DM is running that day.

What's your view of the mathematical balance?

To theoretical observation it looks fairly tightly honed (and the spell damage expressions, just to pick on one example, look sufficiently non-aesthetically motivated that the motivation has to be something else, which would be maths). But what about nova-ing (in a context of asymmetric resource suites)? Are there systemic tools to handle this, or does it rely on GM control over pacing?

I may not be the best person to ask, since I roll my monsters' damage, rather than using the average. As someone who likes fast combat, the math feels good to me (I don't have quite the time or inclination to do a more thorough, objective analysis). More than a few times, on first glance, I would think that a monster had a few too many hit points, but ultimately once battle was joined I found that the players hit often enough and did enough damage that it didn't get too grindy. Actually, running Lost Mines of Phandelver, I had an interesting experience-

[sblock=Spoilers]In the first part of the adventure, the characters, at 1st level fight a bugbear and its pet wolf. Bugbears have 27 hp, compared to goblins' 7 hp and wolves' 11 hp. The first time the characters fought the bugbear and wolf, man I was worried they wouldn't be able to pull it out. But they just barely did. After leveling up, they spend part 2 in the Redbrand Hideout, which has a room with three bugbears. Remembering the earlier fight, I thought this was going to be too much for the characters. To my surprise, the three bugbears were pretty quickly and pretty easily dealt with.[/sblock]

I think people might get an impression after playing a session or 2 at 1st or 2nd level that the game is very lethal. But as a matter of fact, the curve from 1st to 3rd level is really steep, and PCs become able to shake off the vagaries of chance. A fighter, for example, has 32 hp at level 3, even with no Con bonus. Most monsters of equivalent CR or lower can't drop him with one hit, even on a crit, let alone kill him outright.

I can't speak very well to nova-ing. It's never really been in my group's repertoire. It seems like the viability of cantrips actually takes some of the edge off; the casters in my group tend to use their cantrips as probing jabs. If they can take out the foe that way, fine, if not, then they comeback with a big spell knock-out punch. Every class seems to have some resource they can replenish with a short rest, so that takes some pressure off, too. But I can't speak for groups for which nova'ing and 15-minute work days was a real problem. It is balanced for the adventuring day, though. So if a DM only does 1 encounter an adventuring day, there's no incentive for casters not to nova beyond anything that fighters and thieves can do. But IMXP, it's jab, jab, BAM!

Final question about maths - how have you found the high-level saves issue? I was one of those whose heart sank a little when the fighter's indomitable went from "always on" to rationed. Legitimate concern or needless worry?

Haven't played any high-level yet. FWIW, I had the same reaction to the change in Indomitable. That said...you may be aware that 5e has a somewhat unusual CR spread. There are a lot of monsters in the low end, and very few on the high end. And the reason is, due to bounded accuracy, the lower level monsters have more viability. But what this also means is that really, most monsters that require saves require something in the DC 11-13 range -- they're just as effected by Bounded Accuracy as the characters. Heck, the infamous Ghouls' paralysis is a DC 10 Saving Throw. Throw in such effects as Bless or Bardic Inspiration, and PCs seem to make a lot of Saves. True, the Adult Red Dragon requires some scary saves. But at that point, between Ability Score Improvements, Feats, buff spells, magic items, and various class features, I don't think it's going to be especially a big problem. And if it is, it's extremely easy to adjust.

 

[pemerton]

Iosue, that's a really great post. Thank you very much!

Inspiration is one of those ideally placed mechanics. There are undoubtedly groups that say, "Inspiration? Forget that!", and they can do that because while it has a mechanical expression, it is not mechanically necessary. Other groups just use it as a benny, a use that as old as the RPG hills -- e.g., "That was hilarious! Here, have some free advantage to distribute as you like!" I think the vast majority of people are using it like this, which is why you aren't hearing much discussion. Finally there's the opposite side of the spectrum from the first group: these are the folks that take those Bonds, Flaws, and Traits seriously! The DMs in these groups are very careful to distribute Inspiration when dramatically, thematically, and characteristically appropriate. The players, I imagine, are diligent in describing the effect of the inspiration in the game fiction. But I think this is a very small subset of the D&D population.

I'm mostly curious about the fourth option that you didn't quite describe there - the spending of the inspiration is pure metagame (so no diligence in describing it in the game fiction), but the earning is handled in the sort of way you see in a game like Burning Wheel or Fate - earn Inspiration for playing your personality traits in a way that drives the game forward, generates complications, etc.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by story progression.

For me, this is one of the strongest parts of 4e (which I called out on the current "best thing from 4e" thread"): the combination of PC build mechanics, plus the default setting from the Monster Manuals, means that play travels along a very recognisably D&D trajectory - start in a village or small town dealing with kobolds or goblins (or swarms of rats), then as you gain levels start to deal with heavier hitters like gnolls and ogres and eventually trolls, then as you enter paragon tier leave most of those behind (except as minions) and encounter drow, mindflayers, giants etc (which can also mean travelling to the Underdark, or to the Elemental Chaos), then at epic things transition again, as the most powerful demons and devils and their overlords come onto the radar as the appropriate antagonists - and epic destinies link their antagonism to the personal trajectories of the PCs ("Now that I'm a demigod, of course Orcus is sending his most powerful demons to hunt me down!").

Of course this trend can be bucked in various ways if a GM does a lot of re-skinning or levelling up or down (in my own case, I levelled up Frost Giants to make them an epic threat, though I did also have some backstory to explain why the giants were powering up).

And part of the premise of the Neverwinter Campaign Setting is to compress a whole Heroic through Paragon story arc into the mechanical space of Heroic tier (so you get re-statted mindflayers, aboleths etc as Heroic-tier opponents).

And then Dark Sun is its whole own thing, which I don't fully understand (but which has Sorcerer Kings as it top-tier opponents) but - if I were to run it - I think would run using 2 or 3-level steps (as I don't think it has the fictional or mechanical meat to flesh out a full 30 levels worth of adventuring).

Despite these various exceptions, I find that default trajectory - the fiction of the tiers reinforced by the way monsters, treasures, traps etc are written up in the various source books - is a huge strength of 4e. For me, it's really been the payoff, in play, of what Worlds & Monsters promised.

I was wondering if 5e has any sort of comparable take on "the story of D&D". I'm pretty sure it will be different, because of bounded accuracy in combination with the monster-spread-by-CR that you described.

 

[Mercurius]

Some are. For instance, 3E claims to be part of the D&D tradition, though over time, as I learn more about and think more about in comparison to 1st ed AD&D and other classic versions of D&D, I find it to be a greater and greater departure from the core of those games.

I didn't mention OSR games, but obviously they claim to be part of the "D&D tradition".

And then there are OGL/SRD games, of which I mentioned one - Trailblazer - which obviously claims to be part of the D&D tradition, in much the same way as PF does.

Certainly all of these are within the broader D&D umbrella, family, tradition, or genus - however you want to put it. But none are "the" official D&D game, but variants on it.

A game like Rolemaster is also within the D&D tradition, thought it's a different (and perhaps now largely extinct) branch of the tradition - it has classes (like D&D) and a spell system based heavily on the D&D one, and is intended to appeal mostly to people who enjoy the basic fantasy tropes and outlook of D&D but want something different from (taking the RM perspective, the phrase would be "sophisticated than") D&D's mechanics (eg robust skill system, less strict class definitions, more nuanced and gritty combat - ie much of the stuff that Monte Cook brought to 3E).

In light of 3E it's easy to look back at a percentile system like RM and see it as obviously not D&D, but when RM was written (early 80s) D&D wasn't a d20 system. Thief skills used percentages, clerical turning used a d20 in AD&D but 2d6 in B/X, and Moldvay's examples of improvisation involved assigning percentage chances - [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] will be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the idea of a stat test rolled on a d20 was introduced in the Expert rules rather than Basic.

And in view of ICE's TSR-style demise in the late 90s, and its current existence which is really at best a lingering on, it's easy to dismiss RM altogether - but in the late 80s ICE was the a big RPG company (on the back of its Middle Earth licence), with full-page ads on the cover or splash page of nearly every Dragon magazine (more info here).

I remember those ads...those were the days. I remember scrambling through boxes a different game stores, looking for rare issues of Dragon. Now you can get anything you want on Ebay, but for some reason the loss of the hunt makes it less desirable...but that's another matter altogether.

Anyhow, interest stuff on Rolemaster. I am familiar with it, of course, but have never played and growing up in the 80s always viewed it as the "more complex fantasy game." But again, Rolemaster isn't claiming to be D&D, isn't even part of the genus - but more a related line. An offshoot, certainly, but if we're looking at it as an evolutionary tree, it broke away early on and differentiated itself substantially. Like bears and wolves, not like wolves and coyotes or foxes (the various D&D retro-clones and d20 games).

TL;DR - there are lots of games that have, in the present or the past, presented themselves as "alternative visions" of D&D. They haven't all created edition wars of the sort you're talking about, though.

But again, I don't see the relevance. Or rather, the edition wars are not relevant to other RPGs and even "alternative versions" of D&D. This narrows down what people have gotten upset about - the core game itself, the flagship, what is considered "official D&D." People become attached to what they identify with the core brand.

This isn't only true for RPGs. I'm rather ambivalent about the band U2, but I remember when they came out with Achtung Baby many people were upset because it was so different from "true U2" - that is, the U2 they had identified with. This is the case with authors, with fashion brands, even with personal relationships ("why are you acting this way? It isn't you").

I don't find the language of "breaking from tradition" very helpful, though. It is very normative, but on no very clear foundation.

Pemerton, for better or worse you require very clear, sharp parameters - far more clear and sharp than I do. So we're going to always have these areas of impasse with our conversations. In a way its like you're realist photographer and I'm an impressionist painter - we approach "art" in a very different way, with different needs and goals. So I think as long as we realize that, and as long as we don't try to make the other play by our rules, then I think there's some room for fruitful dialogue.

"Breaking from tradition" isn't a particularly exotic or difficult concept. Traditions exist in all fields and domains and invariably some new idea or take comes forward that "breaks" from it, which of course rarely is so dramatic and is usually more a matter of divergence.

Let me put it this way. Let's say we start with OD&D as "0". Holmes was just a half-step away, a refinement - so "0.5." Moldvay was another half-step, so "1," with BECMI being another full step, or "2." AD&D, on the other hand, was a larger divergence, say three steps away from OD&D - so "3." 2E was another full step away from 1E, so "4." 3E came in and was another solid divergence, say two more steps away, so "6." And then we come to 4E, which was probably at least (or only, depending up on how you look at it), a full three steps away from 3E, so "9." People became upset, not only because it was three steps away from 3E, but also because it had diverged so far from early versions of D&D. 5E came in and dialed it back a bit, even to something less divergent from 3E, so maybe a "5."

Don't take the numbers too literally - I'm just trying to illustrate the point. The above works for both long-timers who established a baseline identification in the 70s and 80s, but also the wave that came in with 3E. For the latter, while they didn't have the identification with early D&D, 3E was a "0" so 4E jumping three steps was huge.

All revisions to D&D involve changes. But classifying them into ones that break with tradition and ones that don't is fraught. Frankly, it strikes me as ex post projection onto the past.

That's how history is written, pemerton. But seemingly you don't remember when 4E came out, and many had a huge issue with how different 4E was from 3E. I remember this clearly because it took awhile for me to see it. I remember thinking, "what do you mean? It is still d20, still the same basic game - now we've just got powers and such." The more I got to know the rules, the more I saw how sharply it diverged from "traditional D&D."

But I think the mistake you make here, if I may, is by focusing on specific rules. Sure, they matter, but it is more the sum total, even the "space in-between" the rules - the vibe and feeling - that makes 4E different. This is why I think the issues many had with 4E were more emotional than intellectual (or rather, it was a combination of both - but I'm highlighting the emotional part because it gets brushed aside a bit, imo). Sure, many didn't like powers or healing surge, and so forth, but there were just as many complaints about the art, or the feeling of the game, or how it facilitated imaginative experience - stuff that can't easily be quantified with specific rules.

It probably would have fizzled - at least, that's my guess. 4e was promoted as a core system, with all the market support that brings with it (organised play, DDI, etc).

I can only assume that tapering 3.5 off was not feasible for them, because if it was they would have done it. It's not as if they weren't configured to produce 3.5 material!

And we did get something akin to 5e in 2011, namely, Essentials! The degree of kinship is of course a matter of contention - Essentials as a design somewhat falls between two stools, and it suffers further from non-design issues to do with how the content was put together and marketed. (About 3 books worth spread over 5 volumes.)

Everything about 5e's design suggests to me that WotC took seriously what it learned from its market reserach. And I agree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] that they used the playtest very effectively to shape and manage, as well as respond to, consumer demands.

The question I have is whither the 4E diehards? When 4E came out, over the next year or two we saw three distinct communities emerge: the d20/Pathfinder/3.5 hold-outs, the retro-clones, and the 4E players. Now we can't know this for sure, but presumably some of each group have "returned to the fold" - but the first two groups still seem in place, still vibrant. But what about the 4E community? Is it surviving, will it survive, without official support? Is there a faithful core following that could form the nucleus of either a strong cult following of the edition, or even something akin to a 4E-version of Pathfinder (not that WotC would allow that)? I'm honestly curious.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The question I have is whither the 4E diehards? When 4E came out, over the next year or two we saw three distinct communities emerge: the d20/Pathfinder/3.5 hold-outs, the retro-clones, and the 4E players. Now we can't know this for sure, but presumably some of each group have "returned to the fold" - but the first two groups still seem in place, still vibrant. But what about the 4E community? Is it surviving, will it survive, without official support? Is there a faithful core following that could form the nucleus of either a strong cult following of the edition, or even something akin to a 4E-version of Pathfinder (not that WotC would allow that)? I'm honestly curious.

We're still running 4E, that's for sure. Don't need more material, really, given how much there is, just as long as the tools keep working. There's no point 4E PF-alike yet.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because the default approach in 4e is that, when you've gained those 20 levels that turn a DC 21 lock from Hard to Easy, you won't be confronting the same lock anymore, at least not in the context of resolving any sort of meaningful challenge or crisis. Because you'll have progressed from the Heroic to the Epic tier, the things you confront are expected to be different.

Nod, but that doesn't mean those things don't exist, just that they might not matter. Easy checks do happen in the context of level-appropriate challenges.

Even if you find yourself back in the same geographic location, the expectation is that something about that location will have changed to make it pose Epic rather than merely Heroic challenges.

I think that's very much up to the DM. You can run status quo in 4e, you might stat the exact same monsters as heroic Solos or Epic minions depending on the party, as you mentioned, above, but skills are less confusing. A 21 DC lock is 21 DC, the level of the party just determines whether that's a hard, moderate or easy DC.

Whereas I don't see the same expectation in 5e. It seems to me that in 5e characters grow in capability very dramatically, but the default assumption is that the world with which they engage doesn't change very much at all.

Well, they grow in hp and damage potential. A 21 DC lock that you couldn't pick at 1st because you're not into locks is still unpickable at 20th unless you've become proficient with theives tools in the meantime.

It seems to me that when people say that bounded accuracy is different from 4e, it is this story feature that they are pointing to.

I also know that some people stripped the +0.5 per level off everything in 4e and ran it that way. I imagine that that provided an experience not too dissimilar to 5e (with stats and items picking up the slack of 5e's proficiency bonuses).

It'd be pretty similar.

But stripping +0.5/level from everything isn't a mechanical change of any depth - the relevant maths (eg % chances of success) all remains the same. What it changes is the story, because now some of the things that are challenging you in combat are kobolds rather than (say) trolls and giants.

Am I making any sense?

Sure. Maybe I'm just not seeing the significance of the distinction.

What problems are being solved here? Other than you got more healing in 4e than 5e, but then again, in 5e, you have a LOT more healing in the party - several classes can cast multiple healing spells per day. At the end of the day, it's pretty much a wash.

You could have a party with no healers, thus only HD and overnight healing (and 'common' healing potions that they find/buy) to see them through. Or you could have a party where everyone has cure..wound prepared every day, and some of them know how to /make/ healing potions, as well.

So you have a similar mechanic (surges ~ HD), but a very dissimilar result (total out-of-combat healing resources being somewhat consistent regardless of party composition, or varying wildly with party composition).

Again, 5-8 expected encounters per adventuring day. Double the number that was expected in 3e. The pacing expectations are largely the same between 4e and 5e.

One thing I've noticed, this is just IMX, though I think the numbers bear it out, is that 1st level 5e characters cannot handle the 'standard' 6-8 moderate-hard encounter day. So, I'd expect most groups to 'learn' to rest more frequently at low level, and maybe un-learn that necessity later (or not, depending, in part on party composition, and how any players with healing-capable PC chose to use their spell resources).

Oh, hey, I acknowledge there are obvious differences. Of course. But, I think you agree, there is a pretty direct line of development from 4e to 5e.

There's a clear line from 3e to 4e to 5e, when it comes to basic mechanics, sure. 5e hasn't gone back to THAC0 or anything like that, it's still very much a d20 game - heck 3pps have already started producing for it using the d20 OGL. Similarly, monster stat blocks, while formatted to look a bit more like the classic game, also show a clear debt to 3e/Pathfinder and 4e.

Class design, OTOH, seems to go from 1e to 2e to 5e, with similarities to 3e being, not coincidental, per se, but not a matter of improving on 3e so much as improving on 2e in a way similar to what 3e did. If that subtle distinction makes any sense.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe I'm just not seeing the significance of the distinction.

It may be a distinction that isn't very significant to anyone but me!

I think the distinction helps explain why some posters can see bounded accuracy as a direct descendant from 4e, and others see it as a radical departure.

When you look at the mechanics - typical odds of success for typical range of challenges - the maths is very similar in both systems. But when you overlay the story/flavour, you see quite different outcomes (because in default 4e high level PCs probably won't be dealing with kobolds, whereas in default 5e this is meant to be feasible).