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

[Tony Vargas]

For me, that would be a deal breaker. Monsters must have their own stories, and should be statted the same at all levels, and should have stats compatible with class levels.

Well, then that's a hard simulationist/narrativist 'split' in the community, and 5e will fail in it's touchie-feelie unification goal.

:shrug:

Frankly, that might be a good thing. There are some styles of play that simply cannot abide other styles at the same table. The harder-core simulationist aproach is one of them. If a gamist 'doesn't like "anime" characters,' for instance, he can just not play one, and he's fine. The simulationist with the same prejudice will object if anyone plays one, and shatters his precious verisimilitude.

It's better to have a game that caters to each - gamist, simulationist, narrativist or whatever - rather than a game that tries to cater to all, and just puts them at the same table, and at eachother's throats.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Some of those things are alright, but I really hate 4E saves, and the at-will cantrips/spells.

 

[Kynn]

Some of those things are alright, but I really hate 4E saves, and the at-will cantrips/spells.

What bothers you about 4e saving throws?

 

[Tony Vargas]

One obvious problem with 4e saves is that they're not what saves were before. Attack rolls take the place of saves in 4e. Saves take the place of durration - they really should have been called something else. 'Fade' or something, maybe?

Just look at how powers are written. ...blah...blah... and target is some-condition (durration) where durration is 'until end of your next turn,' (save ends), until the end of the encounter or something else. 4e saves are just random durration.

 

[Sirot]

I like 4e (more than 3.5e anyways) and saving throws irk me in 4e a lot too.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I would bring back the full round action for the casting of scrolls and make scrolls a ritual completion item. That is the casters could do a ritual but not complete it, instead make a scroll. The casting of the scroll later completes the ritual but needs a full uninterupted round to cast.

 

[triqui]

Probably agreed. I absolutely loved that at first, but it wore off.

Same to me. I think the problem was that, while balance is desirable, egalitarianism is not.

To quote Friedman: "it's not about every runner ends the race at the same time, it's about making all of them starting from the same point"

I don't think a class should be better than other, but I think it should be different.

 

[triqui]

They were conserving arrows; longbowmen could shoot up to a dozen a minute, according to this.

Normal archers in 3.x do get one attack per round. Only skilled ones get more.

Skilled Longbowmen (most skilled archers in middle age) can shoot once per round. Any single archer worth his salt can shoot twice that from level 1 (rapid shot). High level ones can shoot 6+ shoots, not counting magic. That's plain stupid from a simulationist point of view. Sure, it can work in terms of in-game consistency. Just like Diablo 2 multishot works in game.

See this. Granted, that's not a realistic combat style as it lacks power and accuracy. But a typical 20th level 3.x fighter has superhuman strength and dexterity due to magic buffs - and maybe then it could work fine. (I'm not looking for realism - magic is not real - just for simulationist self-consistency.)

I think I can safely stands there while wearing a leather jacket. Most of the arrows did not even stick on the (inmobile) paper target.

In any case, there are certainly weapons that can be used to attack more than once every 6 seconds.

Against an inmobile target, sure. Against a real oponent who is also attacking you, by no means. An average fencing combat in Olympics last for a few minutes and they score 5 points max. And those are about the fastest guys in the world using one of the fastest moving swords. Same goes with Kendo.

Again, it depends of what internal consistency do you want to achieve. To simulate real men fighting each other, 1 or 2 attacks per round is realistic. If you want to simulate, say, Dragon Ball Z or Naruto, that's a different thing. Both are legitimate.

 

[greyhaze]

I love the ideas and generalities I've heard in regards to 5e so far, but man, when the rubber starts hitting the road, some folks will be happy, and some won't. And I'm the same as everyone else--just hoping my preferences make it in

Well said. And I agree with pretty much your entire wish list, except not scaling AC.

I think Defenses and BAB should both scale and they should scale by level, not by Class.

What I mean is, a fighter is good with melee weapons - great he gets bonuses to use all melee weapons, but a cleric or even wizard that is 20th level using a staff should have a +X that is equal to the fighter of the same level - sans bonuses. If you're a 20th level wizard, you're likely not going to be doing melee - BUT, you're a 20th level wizard, why can't you hit just as accurately as a fighter with your limited choice of weapon, you're certainly not going to hit as hard as a fighter, so where's the issue.

BAB based on Classes needs to go (imho).

 

[SensoryThought]

I scanned this thread for the olive branch to 4e - seems like people again are restating all the things they hate. How about focusing on the positives?