D&D 4E An Olive Branch to 4e Fans: Some Things 5e Should Take From 4e

[Deadboy]

Good list! I think if all those things make it into 5e, WotC'll have the start of a very, very solid game.

Seems a lot of players who prefer older editions want to see alignment back as it was... I personally never understood the attraction of alignment. I've hated it since I was playing 2nd edition and would often refuse to write one on my character sheet unless someone made me. I always felt they were too generalized, sounded too little like the belief systems of actual people, and were too often used as a license to be a jerk by certain types of players. There's no worse thing to hear after someone acts like a complete dillhole than "that's what my character would do" while pointing to that CN on their character sheet. HATE HATE HATE alignment.

Paladins using Detect Evil to spoil plotlines is also an annoying aspect. If I want some demon possessing a local lord as part of my plot, I don't want that ruined by the application of a readily available class feature. Lame.

 

[Nine Hands]

Something I would like to see is the Minion mechanic remain and have a system where saves for Minions are automatic failures. I use a similar system in my home brewed mecha game and it works great, hit a Minion and score a critical hit. If he has to make an explosion save or have his mecha go up in a ball of flame, he just goes up in a ball of flame. Just skipping right to the good part.

This way you can still have save or die effects, but against the vast hordes, those spells just kill them outright. Now this was usually not a problem in 4E because the spell effect was usually a rider on top of damage. At least as far as I remember.

 

[Kalontas]

I don't know, the "evilness radar" is something I rather liked from 3E/older paladins. To me, it really hit an idea of what a paladin is - the uncorruptible stalwart hero who can almost tell evil by smell. I do recognise the mechanical problems with it, but those can be fixed. Perhaps it records only supernatural evil. Perhaps the human evil has different "smell" from supernatural evil (I always roleplayed the paladin detecting evil (demon, namely) as smelling sulphur). You want to keep that possesed noble secret? Well, there's bound to be demonic abilities that grant protection against detect evil spells.

Your paladin actually is evil, whether for Asmodeus or he's just a misguided zealot? Well, he should be able to swap "detect evil" for "detect chaos" or "good", depending on his affiliation.

 

[Consonant Dude]

I think they need some work but the very best new feature of 4th edition for me was rituals. And based on what they are saying, it looks like in 5th edition they will be flavorful, they will feel special and they will use spell components.

Rituals (conceptually) rock!

 

[jsaving]

The gist of 4th edition is that the rules got out of the way of the story as much as possible. The lack of restrictions means you can play just about any character you can imagine, from a Tiefling Paladin of Asmodeus to a Barbarian/Monk hybrid, without losing mechanical footing (Primary ability scores aside). If 5E wants to capture the interest of 4E players, it needs to provide enough balance and lack of restrictions to let people play whatever characters suit them, even if those characters are contrary to traditional stereotypes or settings, and without making their characters useless.

I think this is both right and wrong, and illustrates part of the divide that's emerged in the gaming community. Does 4e combines strong-and-simple mechanics with the ability to play any character you can imagine? Or does it combine bland mechanics with the inability to play any character that's too complicated or potentially unable to fill one of 4e's designated roles?

Full disclosure -- I like both systems, and when our gaming group split over whether to embrace Pathfinder or 4e, I was the only one willing to play both. I love what I've heard thus far about 5e and am at least cautiously optimistic that it could end or at least reduce the fracturing that's occurred in my group and elsewhere.

As I see it, 3e gave players a greater ability to richly customize their characters, but put novices at a disadvantage while opening the door to abuses by players willing to leverage things like overly front-loaded core classes and unforeseen prestige-class synergies. 4e addressed many of the balance considerations that plagued 3e, but in a way that perhaps felt too much like players were being protected from themselves.

The irony is that both parts of my old gaming group would agree that 5e needs to let people play "whatever character suits them" -- they'd just disagree over which edition best accomplishes that goal. So while I'm all for the general sentiment you express, I'm not sure any one edition fully combines balance with customization in the way you're at least implicitly suggests 5e needs to be.

 

[BobTheNob]

AC scaling with attack bonus... I feel like there has to be a better way. Ultimately, the whole progression of attacks and defenses, both for PCs and enemies, feels like a way of saying "you hit on an X or better against same-level foes" where X is probably 8 or 9. I know that the scaling means that a 1st level PC has no chance to hit a 15th level monster on anything other than a crit, which is quite possibly reasonable, but it feels like a lot of extra math for not enough benefit. I expect 5e to work differently, and I look forward to seeing what they do.

I thought they said that there was an intention to flatten "to hit" growth? Maybe I misread.

But, thats the solution Im more inclined to. Dont "Grow" AC because you dont need to, cause we are not going to "Grow" to hit either. Rather then representing a characters martial capabilities using ever growing numbers we instead allow for a "what you can do" mechanic. Cool special maneavours and the like.

If there is one thing we can take from 4e its that fighters dont need to be just a collection of big numbers.

 

[KarinsDad]

I didn't like the mechanical results of Level Drain, but I absolutely loved the roleplaying results.


There was an absolute dread for players of 3E and earlier PCs when walking through a barrow mound with undead that could level drain.

The players were SO cautious and SO unwilling to have their PC out in front, but they had to complete the mission or whatever.

As a DM, it was great to see players ACTUALLY roleplaying their PCs as if they were actually there and could get the total crap beat out of them.


One thing about D&D and 4E especially is the fact that there is little in the way of semi-permanent harm so that the players play the PCs as if the players were really there. They play these cocky little PCs for whom damage isn't really a big thing at all.

Adding some "beyond this encounter" and even "beyond this day" type detrimental effects (yeah, disease exists in 4E, but it's mostly a joke) that would result in some players actually being cautious both in and out of combat would be great. Not level drain specifically, but ways to hinder the PC significantly so that the player doesn't want to just waltz through every encounter as if s/he owned it. It's one thing to be a hero, it's another a hero for which not too much bad can ever happen except a once in a blue moon death (and even that, Raise Dead, ho hum). 4E is more like a superhero comic book than it is like earlier versions of D&D.

"Bring out your dread."

 

[kinem]

Here's my take on these suggestions, as someone who's not a fan of 4E at all:

- Combat Advantage: A simple +2 bonus for having combat advantage is easy and simple to keep track of compared of the myriad situational modifiers you could get in previous editions (flanking, prone, flat-footed, higher ground, etc etc etc). It's also easy for things like a rogue's sneak attack. Have combat advantage - can sneak attack.

No. Different situations call for different, and stacking, effects.

- No Rolling to "Confirm" Criticial Hits. Always hated that.

No. It makes no sense if when you need a 20 to hit, every hit is a crit.

- Being able to save against a "save or suck" effect every turn in combat. 3.5 started this with hold person, 4e applied to all such effects. I didn't like the "coin toss" saving throws, but it's still a good idea. Nothing is worse than being nauseated, paralyzed, dazed, or whatever else and being unable to do anything for the entire battle.

No. It turns spells into mere delaying tactics while hit point damage is where the real action is. Yuck, yuck. Hold person was utterly a useless spell in 3.5.

- Standard, Move and Minor Actions: I liked this. No full-round actions. It's simple and straightforward while giving players enough flexibility to do the kinds of things they need to do.

No. Some things realistically take a full round or longer to do.

- No "iterative" attacks. I hated that about 3rd edition. Likewise, monsters only tend to make 1 or 2 attacks also, not claw, claw, bite, wing, wing, tail slap, rake, rend, etc.

No. I really like the way multiple attacks give a sense of what's going on; if you have two weapons, you make two attacks; and of course you can split your attacks as you see fit. Perhaps a matter of taste, but it doesn't slow down combat much and adds verisimilitude IMO.

- AC that scales with attack bonus. I always thought it was ridiculous that characters got way, way better at attacking people, but not better at defending themselves without loading up on magic items.

Agreed. Of course, D20 modern did this first.

- No Rolling for Stats or Hit Points.

No. It should be an option, as it was in 3.x. There can be advantages to working with what you happen to get.

- At-Will Spells and Cantrips. It makes vancian casting much more bearable. I hope my wizard doesn't sit there twiddling his thumbs or pointlessly plinking things with a crossbow during all those rounds of combat where he wants to do something, but doesn't want to waste a good prepared spell. Likewise, cantrips, as the simplest of magic, should be able to be used at-will. Pathfinder likewise saw the value in that.

I can see a case for this.

- Implements: I liked that wands, staffs, etc improved a caster's spells in much the same way that magical weapons improve attacks. It makes much more sense for me for a wand or staff to serve as a focus for a wizard's powers than a spell battery.

A wands of fireballs +1 is not a new (4E-era) idea.

I do agree that things along these lines (but not required) can be cool.

- Spells that required Actions to "Sustain." This is a simple and effective way of balancing alot of the more "overpowered" spells, like fly, and preventing players from stacking too many buffs.

In certain cases it's fine. I would not like to see too much nerfing of (pre-4E) spells, though.

- Alignment is just fluff. No class alignment restrictions. No alignment-based magic. No detect evil. No smite evil. Alignment is there as a way of describing your character's morality, nothing more. There's probably alot of people that disagree with me, but I loved that about 4e.

Agreed, although this is hardly original to 4E.

- Simple, Easy to Read and Use Monster Stat-blocks. This makes the DM's life sooooo much easier.

No and Yes.

No, if it means that monster stats would be dumbed down and/or built in a different way than PCs thus making monsters with actual character class levels hard to pull off as in 4E.

Yes, in that there should be a readable and simple presentation of the most commonly used information, and often that's the only information that will need to be re-printed in modules and such.

Monster and NPC stats need to be "telescoping": There are the simple stats, and then there are the real stats for when you need to know more about a particular guy (whether he be human or not).

- No Level Drain. Good riddance!

3.x's negative level system was fine.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

- Combat Advantage: A simple +2 bonus for having combat advantage is easy and simple to keep track of compared of the myriad situational modifiers you could get in previous editions (flanking, prone, flat-footed, higher ground, etc etc etc). It's also easy for things like a rogue's sneak attack. Have combat advantage - can sneak attack.

- No Rolling to "Confirm" Criticial Hits. Always hated that.

- Being able to save against a "save or suck" effect every turn in combat. 3.5 started this with hold person, 4e applied to all such effects. I didn't like the "coin toss" saving throws, but it's still a good idea. Nothing is worse than being nauseated, paralyzed, dazed, or whatever else and being unable to do anything for the entire battle.

- Standard, Move and Minor Actions: I liked this. No full-round actions. It's simple and straightforward while giving players enough flexibility to do the kinds of things they need to do.

- No "iterative" attacks. I hated that about 3rd edition. Likewise, monsters only tend to make 1 or 2 attacks also, not claw, claw, bite, wing, wing, tail slap, rake, rend, etc.

Yes to the above.

- AC that scales with attack bonus. I always thought it was ridiculous that characters got way, way better at attacking people, but not better at defending themselves without loading up on magic items.

Not sure I agree. They may need to scale, but at different rates. Otherwise it's just status quo.

- No Rolling for Stats or Hit Points.

- At-Will Spells and Cantrips. It makes vancian casting much more bearable. I hope my wizard doesn't sit there twiddling his thumbs or pointlessly plinking things with a crossbow during all those rounds of combat where he wants to do something, but doesn't want to waste a good prepared spell. Likewise, cantrips, as the simplest of magic, should be able to be used at-will. Pathfinder likewise saw the value in that.

These should be options, not mandatory.

- Implements: I liked that wands, staffs, etc improved a caster's spells in much the same way that magical weapons improve attacks. It makes much more sense for me for a wand or staff to serve as a focus for a wizard's powers than a spell battery.

Agreed.

- Spells that required Actions to "Sustain." This is a simple and effective way of balancing alot of the more "overpowered" spells, like fly, and preventing players from stacking too many buffs.

Agree in some cases, not in all.

- Alignment is just fluff. No class alignment restrictions. No alignment-based magic. No detect evil. No smite evil. Alignment is there as a way of describing your character's morality, nothing more. There's probably alot of people that disagree with me, but I loved that about 4e.

Disagree. No CE Paladins.

- Simple, Easy to Read and Use Monster Stat-blocks. This makes the DM's life sooooo much easier.

Agree.

- No Level Drain. Good riddance!

Oh, come on. You know we love to put the fear of the DM into players with wights and spectres!

 

[Falling Icicle]

No. It makes no sense if when you need a 20 to hit, every hit is a crit.

To crit in 4e you need a natural 20, not just a 20+ on your attack roll. The dice itself must be a 20, so there is a 5% chance to crit, not every hit.

No. It turns spells into mere delaying tactics while hit point damage is where the real action is. Yuck, yuck. Hold person was utterly a useless spell in 3.5.

Interesting. My Oracle in Pathfinder has used Hold Person to great effect. *shrug*

No. Some things realistically take a full round or longer to do.

I was referring specifically to the concept of "full round actions" in 3.x, which were really only used for iterative attacks. There could still be actions that take a full round (as in a real full round, one that takes until your next turn, like summon monster spells) or longer to do.

No. I really like the way multiple attacks give a sense of what's going on; if you have two weapons, you make two attacks;

I don't mind people with two weapons getting two attacks. One of the things I didn't like about 4e was that TWF did basically nothing unless you had specific powers to utilize it. Likewise, I'm fine with certain special attacks or maneuvers letting you make an extra attack (i.e. rapid shot or flurry of blows). I just don't want to see extra attacks as the default, and I don't want to see characters with 8+ attacks per round ever again.

Perhaps a matter of taste, but it doesn't slow down combat much and adds verisimilitude IMO..

I don't see how gaining extra attacks adds verisimilitude. It's far from realistic for a human being to shoot a bow 5 times in the span of 6 seconds. Medieval archers would usually shoot up to half a dozen arrows or so per minute, usually less. So if you want "verisimilitude", one attack per 6 second round is actually being quite generous.