D&D 4E A question for 4e players and DMs (about 5e)

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I am fitting the topic here because I suppose it is general enough, but specifically the perspective I am looking for is from those "familiar with" & "with an affinity to" 4e anyway.

Please and please, I don't want to start in on an argument about which is superior, "just some facts and opinions" that I would like to gather.

Brief background:

• The group has played 4e since 2009 ish. For half the group, it is the only RPG they know. Some of the group was raised on AD&D etc.
• The group does not get to play that often. A few times a year frankly, albeit a few days of concentrated gaming when they are together.
• Learning a new system will cut in to the limited time available to the group, especially for the DM. And ....
• It is my rotation as DM now. It is time for me to build a world/campaign/etc. My time is far more limited than I would like.
• To be blunt, SOME amount of tactical/miniatures is desired for this group.
• The group played what I think was the very first "Next" alpha (a couple encounters as I recall) that was released years ago. Rules were limited at the time.
• There is, in a general sense, no dis-satisfaction with 4e. We tend to keep toward the heroic tier and enforce some simplification to combat. It is enjoyed by all. But, in a general sense, we also have nothing against trying something new!

My word, that is all a very long winded way of asking this: "Should we fire up 4e again, or should I bite the bullet and invest my time and money in 5e. And specifically, Is it somewhat clear how much miniature/tactical play you can introduce to 5e? Abstracting movement of miniatures around a battle map is probably not quite enough to scratch the tactical itch of these guys."

Any assistance /opinion/guidance is appreciated. I hope my question is even clear at this point.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It's hard to talk about this without getting argumentative

One of the worst parts of 4e is the bloat. Bloat, unfortunately, is part of every edition of D&D since at least 2e (which is the edition I started with). It's a problem with Pathfinder too. I hate 4e's CB, mostly because it's main role is to promote bloat. When you have players who refuse to build characters without the, the bloat won't go away. Right now 5e is new, so there's little bloat, but there will be.

I found 5e's rules to be confusing (not gamist) and didn't like the abandonment of roles. I like how previously "weak" classes like the bard were badass in 4e. (In 3e, the bard was competing with the sorcerer and rogue. In 4e, it competes with the cleric and warlord instead, making it easier to determine if it's filling its role or not.) Many of the things I don't like about 5e are an argumentative rehash though, so I'll leave it alone for the rest of the post.

5e does have some very good legendary monsters. The aboleth was the best one I've ever seen since, well, 4e. (I bought 5e's MM just because many of the legendary monsters have cool abilities... that I will steal for 4e.) Many solos I've generated since I read the black dragon 5e entry have "legendary attacks" although they're just at-wills that go off whenever a PC ends their turn.

5e does have lots of movement-manipulating abilities, it's just that the basic rules assume a lack of a map. The biggest problem, as usual, are AoOs. I almost think only defenders should get those. (Not having AoOs is not an option. It leaves squishies too vulnerable.) Needless to say, 4e had this exact same problem

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

It's hard to talk about this without getting argumentative

Oh, I know. I won't go there so the thread hopefully won't either. This is not one of those threads.

I found 5e's rules to be confusing (not gamist) and didn't like the abandonment of roles. I like how previously "weak" classes like the bard were badass in 4e. (In 3e, the bard was competing with the sorcerer and rogue. In 4e, it competes with the cleric and warlord instead, making it easier to determine if it's filling its role or not.) Many of the things I don't like about 5e are an argumentative rehash though, so I'll leave it alone for the rest of the post.

5e does have some very good legendary monsters. The aboleth was the best one I've ever seen since, well, 4e. (I bought 5e's MM just because many of the legendary monsters have cool abilities... that I will steal for 4e.) Many solos I've generated since I read the black dragon 5e entry have "legendary attacks" although they're just at-wills that go off whenever a PC ends their turn.

5e does have lots of movement-manipulating abilities, it's just that the basic rules assume a lack of a map. The biggest problem, as usual, are AoOs. I almost think only defenders should get those. (Not having AoOs is not an option. It leaves squishies too vulnerable.) Needless to say, 4e had this exact same problem

You defined my 2 concerns (for my group/instance): So, it sounds to me like, 1) since there is no assumption of a map and 2) the rules are potentially "confusing" it may not be the right spot for time starved gamers to take it up. I have been leaning this way, and time will probably make the decision on my behalf.

Of note, it is funny the 'equalizing roles' are one thing I would have tossed out of 4e as well. but it is easy enough to do that on ones own by having an unbalanced party (which our small group often does). Proceed at our own peril!

Thanks for the feedback, it is helpful.

 

[Jhaelen]

Eh, so what arguments would actually speak _for_ switching to 5e? Imho, just keep playing 4e. It's the best edition of the game, after all

 

[Raith5]

The games are very different experiences. I am playing a 4e campaign near the end (30th level) and a 5e campaign near the start (3rd level). Ultimately I prefer 4e as a game but I also find 5e to be a bit of a relief.

I really like the rules light sense of 5e and way combats are quick/not as grindy as 4e and you get so much more gameplay in. I also (unexpectedly) really enjoy being lifted from the encounter centric focus of 5e . But like your group I find the tactical side of 5e weak with martial types a underdone and I find the theatre of the mind kind of stuff doesnt seem to work all that smoothly. In short, according to my tastes they went a touch too far in speeding up combats at the cost of decreasing the tactical bite of combats.

So I would suggest sitting down with you group and see if there are a handful of 4e elements/options you could houserule into 5e otherwise I would stick with 4e but cut the hp monsters and the other things that can speed up combats and let you get on with the story.

 

[KingsRule77]

Map and tactical grid is optional, but feasible. We use one for the more dynamic fights but not for all battles.
The rules aren't confusing in the slightest. Particularly for anyone who played an edition other than 4e.

 

[Celebrim]

Though there are elements of the design goals that I admire, I don't like 4e for many of the same reasons that others in this thread like it.

But I also see no reason for you to switch from 4e mid-campaign unless there is extreme dissatisfaction with the rules set. Ultimately, while I'm picky about the rules, I believe that rules are inferior and subordinate to the process of play. If your process of play is still satisfying most of the time, you don't have rules problems. Since you've claimed that there is no dissatisfaction, then I claim that there is no reason for introducing novelty for its own sake. The rules are working for you. The goal here should be creating play, not trying out rules. I don't like 4e, and I'd never run it, but I'd rather play than talk.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Brief background:

• The group has played 4e since 2009 ish. For half the group, it is the only RPG they know. Some of the group was raised on AD&D etc.
• The group does not get to play that often. A few times a year frankly, albeit a few days of concentrated gaming when they are together.
• Learning a new system will cut in to the limited time available to the group, especially for the DM. And ....
• It is my rotation as DM now. It is time for me to build a world/campaign/etc. My time is far more limited than I would like.
• To be blunt, SOME amount of tactical/miniatures is desired for this group.
• The group played what I think was the very first "Next" alpha (a couple encounters as I recall) that was released years ago. Rules were limited at the time.
• There is, in a general sense, no dis-satisfaction with 4e. We tend to keep toward the heroic tier and enforce some simplification to combat. It is enjoyed by all. But, in a general sense, we also have nothing against trying something new!

My word, that is all a very long winded way of asking this: "Should we fire up 4e again, or should I bite the bullet and invest my time and money in 5e.

Given all the above, you should just keep playing 4e.

And specifically, Is it somewhat clear how much miniature/tactical play you can introduce to 5e? Abstracting movement of miniatures around a battle map is probably not quite enough to scratch the tactical itch of these guys."

5e is at least as easy to run with a play surface as without, since it does give measures for everything in feet. If you're using a 1" = 5' scale grid, all you're doing is dividing by 5 a lot, which is hardly difficult. I've seen DMs essentially(npi) revert to 4e or 3.5 ways of handling the grid when running 5e with one, too. There's little reason not to. There's also little gain from doing so. 5e is designed for quick combats over tactical depth and using a grid will give you quick combats on a grid, not tactical depth or interest.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

The feedback from all is appreciated.

In the interest of limited time, the next campaign-let will be 4e. The group may pick up 5 on the next go 'round in 18 months or so.

 

[D'karr]

If you are looking to do a Heroic Level campaign with limited time for prep, I would recommend you look at the Neverwinter Campaign Setting for 4e.

It is a crunched/compressed Heroic/Paragon level campaign all to be played in the heroic level. Except for some FR specifics, it should be rather easy to port to most campaign settings, but be aware that the campaign is using the tropes of 4e FR for a lot of it's background (Thayan Wizards, Netherese, Spellplague, Eruption of Mt. Hotenow, etc.) I've had no trouble looking at those as inspiration and using them, but you need to be aware in case you want to convert it to a homebrew setting.