D&D 5E A 5th Edition: And It's About Time

Kurtomatic

First Post
Regarding the to-hit slopes between various editions, y'all may be interested to read a couple of recent blog entries from Steve Winter:


Cheers!

UPDATE: Also, I meant to add, here is a paraphrased quote of Monte today regarding scaling vs advancement:

Monte: Instead of the fighter getting a better and better attack bonus, he instead gets more options to do stuff as he goes up in level, and his attack bonus goes up at a very modest rate. I think it offers a better play experience that the orc/ogre can remain in the campaign, and people can know how the monster would work from a previous experience, but they remain a challenge for longer.​

This implies that #dndnext could have a shallower to-hit profile that previous editions.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Pour

First Post
The announcement of 5e is not a sudden declaration of open season on 4e.

I've learned to ignore them, honestly. The only place that kind of bashing really bothers me is in entirely unrelated threads dedicated to 5e development. Even then, I just gloss over those posts and continue on with the conversation. I imagine that offended vocal percentage will always claim 4e inferior, not D&D, and us fans dumb MMOers or misguided sycophants for the 'lost edition'. It's kind of funny to me at this point, as those people have little to no credibility to me in conversation- nor do they contribute anything meaningful to me personally on the boards related to game theory, my game, or my preferred conversations on ENWorld.

Not saying the OP has belittled us, I only skimmed his first post after it became apparent where it was headed, but I really do identify with Dannager's complaint afterward. I think some people have to validate that they didn't follow 4e, and reaffirm the 5e changes so they might return 'home'. None of that is going to change my enjoyment of 4e, though. Usually the more the real edition warriors battle, the worse they look and sound. Don't get dragged into that negativity, man. Rise above.

I suppose it does some good how pleasant the OP was at the end, but the message is all the same. Yes, he didn't like it. The real question is why did I even read this thread to begin with, though, hehe.
 

airwalkrr

Adventurer
I have a feeling that may be an atypical experience that you've had, then. I think there's a general consensus that anything in the level-1 to level+3 range tends to produce encounters that are mildly to significantly challenging without becoming overwhelming. And, within this encounter level range, there is a much wider range of monsters than can be used (as wide as level-4 to level+4) which is wide enough that you should be able to get by at any stage of the PCs' career. Add to that the fact that it's silly easy to bump monsters up or down by a couple levels, and you have a system that gives you a "stable" of literally thousands of different monsters that you can throw at a party of any given level (that's not an exaggeration; the Compendium lists nearly 5000 monsters).

In my experience, the encounter level system allows for as wide or wider of a range than the CR system did. I think this is a good thing, and I'd love to see 5e allow a similarly wide range of useful challenges at any given level.
Maybe it is atypical, but I did not play just one or two games with one or two DMs. It seemed common enough to me that it was a serious detriment to a DM's ability to design encounters.

I really like the notion of making the orc relevant at all levels of play. That was something that 1e had that I missed as early as 3e.
 

Dannager

First Post
Maybe it is atypical, but I did not play just one or two games with one or two DMs. It seemed common enough to me that it was a serious detriment to a DM's ability to design encounters.

I really like the notion of making the orc relevant at all levels of play. That was something that 1e had that I missed as early as 3e.

If they can do it, that's awesome. Horizontal versus vertical character advancement would be very cool, and, frankly, it's more exciting to gain a new ability or new way of handling a challenge when you level up than it is to gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls.

To a certain extent, minions were 4e's answer to this problem. I think there's probably a better way to do it, and I think the minion design space is probably best saved for actual minions rather than monsters that would have been a challenge in previous tiers. On balance, though, I think it was an adequate solution that bears improving upon.
 

airwalkrr

Adventurer
Not saying the OP has belittled us, I only skimmed his first post after it became apparent where it was headed, but I really do identify with Dannager's complaint afterward. I think some people have to validate that they didn't follow 4e, and reaffirm the 5e changes so they might return 'home'. None of that is going to change my enjoyment of 4e, though. Usually the more the real edition warriors battle, the worse they look and sound. Don't get dragged into that negativity, man. Rise above.
If you enjoy 4e, then by all means, play it until the cows come home. I know a lot of people who enjoy GURPS, but I am not a fan. Playing 4e just seemed to me like playing GURPS (not mechanically, but by analogy). It was a well-designed game that I was not inclined to like.

I will re-iterate that I really did not intend to start a flame war. But I think a lot of people will identify with me that it is about time we got an edition of the game where the designers seem more interested in what we as players want. And that is what I am seeing from the 5e announcements. So that is great!
 

SlyDoubt

First Post
If it doesn't bother you, why post?

The guy didn't enjoy his experience with 4E. Instead of saying, "Ah, that's a shame, but don't you think it did some things nicely?" people simply need to find issue. We're talking about the future of the game, not what 4E is.

So, to keep on topic:

OP what did 4E do that seemed clever or creative? What aspects or objectives with 4E do you think should be a part of the D&D experience? Obviously it wasn't your cup of tea but I'm sure you thought "that's a clever idea" at least a few times.
 

Tallifer

Hero
I remember the day 4th edition was released. I flipped through it. But it did not look like D&D.

Now I am sure that those with extensive experience with 4e will tell me I have it all wrong.

I would like to say that you got it all wrong, but instead I will concede that you enjoy different things about D&D than I. I should also take great offense at anyone saying that the Fourth Edition is not D&D, but I have learned that it just means "not your type of D&D" expressed in the usual internet hyperbole.

I just hope that the Fifth Edition can enable gamers like you and I to sit down and play the same game. I live in Korea nowadays, and it is hard enough to find roleplayers. One of our gaming group refuses to even look at anything except Pathfinder.
 

airwalkrr

Adventurer
If it doesn't bother you, why post?

The guy didn't enjoy his experience with 4E. Instead of saying, "Ah, that's a shame, but don't you think it did some things nicely?" people simply need to find issue. We're talking about the future of the game, not what 4E is.

So, to keep on topic:

OP what did 4E do that seemed clever or creative? What aspects or objectives with 4E do you think should be a part of the D&D experience? Obviously it wasn't your cup of tea but I'm sure you thought "that's a clever idea" at least a few times.
I did, to be sure. Let us take the combat chapter as an example. It was short, simple, and to the point. Very little of that needs to be changed. The action economy in 4e was excellent. In most cases, most characters got one chance to attack per round (their standard action). It was not very retro, but it was very simple and an example of something that can facilitate faster play, more monster slayage, and more treasure gained by the end of a combat session. If I compare the action table on page 289 of the 4e Player's Handbook, I strongly prefer that to the action table on page 141 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook. The former is simple and includes the vast majority of stuff you are going to do in the game. The latter is (by comparison) exhaustive, and quite frankly confusing to new players. Keep the action table of 4e, maybe even trim it a little, and put that in the Basic book. Expand as need be with supplements.

Now this next one, I might be in the minority on, but one thing I loved about 1e was the traumatic experience of falling to negative hit points. You literally had to rest for like a week (or some roughly equivalent long period of time) unless you had access to powerful magic before you could go out and adventure again. Adventuring is dangerous! Death or serious injury should be a real part of that or players get complacent.

Magic items belong in the Dungeon Master's Guide. End of story. They are rewards for a job well done that the Dungeon Master selects based on the tone of his campaign, not toys that should be flaunted in front of the players in the Player's Handbook as if they have the right to each and every one should they desire it. Bring it back.

Back to 4e, one of the few things I liked was the old school approach to awarding the same XP for every monster, regardless of player character level. Maybe it is not a true simulation of the amount of experience one ought to earn for defeating a foe of a significantly higher or lower level, but it is simple and makes awarding XP a quick part of the game rather than the big fat XP table in the 3e DMG. So stick with the 1e/2e/4e approach. A simple XP table for monsters based on their level. A simple rule such as "no XP for monsters 10 levels lower than your own level" ought to be enough.

That is some stuff I want to see in the new edition. This is stuff that really made the game work well and created the right mood.
 

airwalkrr

Adventurer
I would like to say that you got it all wrong, but instead I will concede that you enjoy different things about D&D than I. I should also take great offense at anyone saying that the Fourth Edition is not D&D, but I have learned that it just means "not your type of D&D" expressed in the usual internet hyperbole.

I just hope that the Fifth Edition can enable gamers like you and I to sit down and play the same game. I live in Korea nowadays, and it is hard enough to find roleplayers. One of our gaming group refuses to even look at anything except Pathfinder.
I suppose the implication was not clear enough. But it did not look like D&D "to me." To me D&D means Vancian magic, fighters who follow different rules than wizards, exploration and battle that requires more resource management than "how many healing surges do I have left?" and resource management that expands and gets more complex over time (there is an argument that 4e does that last point, but to a much lesser degree than in previous editions in my opinion). That is just "to me." I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong for liking 4e or that 4e got it wrong for everyone.

And hey, I will play anything if that is all there is. If I found myself with a group who only wanted to play Pathfinder, I would play it. Remember that in my OP, I did say that the best game was a game with enthusiastic players. But I certainly have not seen enthusiasm for D&D flourish with the advent of 4e. Maybe it has in some areas, but the sales of Pathfinder over 4e lends credence to my position that 4e players are on the out. And if a system does not excite players, it is hard to enjoy oneself. Almost every 4e game I tried to play was full of lukewarm players who seemed to be playing 4e because it was all they had. Might be a regional thing. But down here in South Texas, Pathfinder is the mainstay of fantasy role-playing right now and 4e is more or less a foot note. But if you are still enthusiastic about 4e and have enthusiastic 4e players, then by all means, stick with it. And maybe 5e will bring people together in some way that has yet to be determined. But I think that is going to mean we get a basic set of rules followed by supplements that mirror respective editions in one form or fashion. Just a guess on my part, but I am having a hard time imagining anything else. So that probably means players who enjoy the "powers supplement" will be players who like 4e while players who enjoy the "Vancian supplement" will be players who like 1e or something like that. I guess we will be finding out soon.
 

Dannager

First Post
exploration and battle that requires more resource management than "how many healing surges do I have left?"

Examples of resource management beyond healing surges:

  • Daily character powers
  • Magic item powers
  • Consumable magic items
  • Ritual reagents
  • Gold
Let's be honest, the resource management of 4e is roughly equivalent to the resource management of 3e. In fact, given that almost every character now has some sort of personal daily reserve of resources to manage, the argument can easily be made that resource management plays a more critical role in 4e than in 3e.

I get that 4e didn't feel like D&D to you. Nothing I say will change that, because for you what D&D is is hardwired and not terribly mutable. There's nothing wrong with that. But it often happens that people who decide that 4e isn't D&D to them start to extend the idea that 4e isn't D&D, imagining things (like a lack of resource management) that aren't necessarily the case.

4e is a robust system. Probably more robust than 3.5, at this point. It's got resource management out the wazoo. That resource management is largely the same, character to character, but I personally don't find that this takes away from its essential D&D-ness. D&D, to me, is fantasy adventure shared with my friends, and maybe a couple of mechanical sacred cows like AC and d20s. But, really, D&D is what happens at the table. It's not important to me that a fighter manage resources differently from a wizard. It's important to me that we have one hell of a good time pretending to be magic elves while munching on junk food together.
 
Last edited:

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top