D&D General Chris Perkins and Stan! - previous D&D edition thoughts

[EzekielRaiden]

There is plenty of 4e in 5e, (and even more in 2024) and plenty of 1e, 2e, and 3e that are not in it. And goodness for that!

No. There's plenty of superficially 4e-like things in 5e.

That's the key difference here. The substantive similarities are almost entirely to 3e. Nearly everything--not truly everything, but nearly everything--"taken" from 4e only looks like 4e if you're someone who never/minimally played it and, in most cases, generally disliked it.

Hit dice are literally opposite of healing surges in every way other than "they do healing."
Cantrips are actively opposed to the actual benefit of at-wills, which was that EVERYONE got solid, reliable, useful attacks they could use any time.
Subclasses are a direct and active rejection of 4e's design ethos.
Races/species actively rejected the "what defines you is what your physiology DOES, not your stat bonuses" concept, only to then drop the stat bonuses too, making species nearly entirely fluff.
Proficiency only "resembles" 4e in that it's similar to 4e math cut in half. In actual function, it often works exactly the opposite, specifically because the half-level bonus was universal and training happened ON TOP OF that. Hence why we had years of people grumbling about how crappy saving throws were. (And remember, prior to what I have called the "Ghoul Surprise", you didn't even get proficiency with saves!)
You have to sacrifice core competency growth (stat bonuses) in order to get feats, directly punishing anyone who chooses cool/flavorful options over powerful but boring ones.

The only things actually taken from 4e, as in, really using the same mechanical concepts within a new system, are its spin on feats (they're much more similar to 4e feats than 3e ones, despite the "choose competency OR cool features" issue), the skill system (which people then run as if it was 3e anyway...), and Backgrounds (which 5.5e then went out of its way to neuter all the things that actually made them similar to the combo of 4e BGs and Themes.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I compared the numbers once.

Strength is capped at 18 vs 20.

AC tops out around-10 that's rare.

THACO can't remember but with 18 strength the numbers similar to 5E.


4E defenses and numbers are way higher. 5E numbers are a lot closer to B/X.

I can absolutely assure you that with just minor investment in magic items, 2e characters can definitely well outstrip 5e ones. Getting negative numbers for THAC0 was not hard. Which, yes, meant that the whole purpose of THAC0 was lost, because now you "needed" to roll numbers too small for the die to roll in order to hit armor class 0--meaning, AC 0 was a guaranteed hit unless you were debuffed, and the "real" AC 0 for you was some negative number instead.

 

[Distracted DM]

I compared the numbers once.

Strength is capped at 18 vs 20.

AC tops out around-10 that's rare.

THACO can't remember but with 18 strength the numbers similar to 5E.


4E defenses and numbers are way higher. 5E numbers are a lot closer to B/X.

That's a good comparison! I'd be happier if the stat bonuses were lower, but whatcha gonna do, they were set by 3e :'D

Otherwise yeah, figure full plate + shield is AC 0.

I guess the difference is that a level 1 character had to roll a 20 to hit that, unless they had a really good to-hit stat bonus from str or dex, then they'd need a 19 or 18.
A level 1 5e character needs an 18, or with a good to-hit stat needs a 16, so still pretty difficult!

Let's say a level 6 fighter: needs a 16, or if they have a good bonus a 14.
With 5e the fighter will likely have 20STR by level 6. Now he needs a 13 to hit that full plate+shield.

I never looked at it like that! Interesting.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There are some important details that are different -- mostly thing that have been simplified for or removed from 5E. It is much more tactically forgiving (and therefore more tactically bland).

Sure, I'd certainly grant that it is more tactically bland than 3e. But "it's 3e but blander" would still seem to be an admission that it's more similar to 3e than anything else.

For comparison, everything I've ever heard about mid- to high-level 2e combat is that it very quickly devolved into "do you have the spells to overcome your enemy's protections and thus obliterate them, or can they overcome your protections first?" type stuff, because high-level magic was stupidly OP back then. By comparison, 5e very intentionally took 3e magic and toned down the power of the upper end, while boosting the power of, and access to, the lower end.

3e and 5e are definitely the most "high magic" editions. And yes, that means I'm saying 4e is not as high-magic, because...it isn't! There were rules for running a 4e game where magic was genuinely nonexistent, though you might have some struggles with certain kinds of things (e.g. large numbers of minions) unless you permitted some of the "kinda magical, kinda not" stuff (like the controller variant of Ranger, can't recall if that was the Hunter or the Scout).

No one here's actually claimed 4E is WoW either. It's a strawman argument wheeled out if anyone says 4E was influenced by video games.

The hard coded roles alone and encounter powers essentially prove that lol.

Its not a bad thing by itself hell I'm ripping off large chunks of BG3 myself.

You just couldn't resist, could you?

You just couldn't resist doing this yet again. You, specifically, were one of the people I thought of when I said it wasn't possible for us to have a conversation about what D&D has learned or could learn from video games. You just had to stake your edition-war flag again.

Thanks for proving my point for me. It's so very kind of you.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure, I'd certainly grant that it is more tactically bland than 3e. But "it's 3e but blander" would still seem to be an admission that it's more similar to 3e than anything else.

For comparison, everything I've ever heard about mid- to high-level 2e combat is that it very quickly devolved into "do you have the spells to overcome your enemy's protections and thus obliterate them, or can they overcome your protections first?" type stuff, because high-level magic was stupidly OP back then. By comparison, 5e very intentionally took 3e magic and toned down the power of the upper end, while boosting the power of, and access to, the lower end.

3e and 5e are definitely the most "high magic" editions. And yes, that means I'm saying 4e is not as high-magic, because...it isn't! There were rules for running a 4e game where magic was genuinely nonexistent, though you might have some struggles with certain kinds of things (e.g. large numbers of minions) unless you permitted some of the "kinda magical, kinda not" stuff (like the controller variant of Ranger, can't recall if that was the Hunter or the Scout).


You just couldn't resist, could you?

You just couldn't resist doing this yet again. You, specifically, were one of the people I thought of when I said it wasn't possible for us to have a conversation about what D&D has learned or could learn from video games. You just had to stake your edition-war flag again.

Thanks for proving my point for me. It's so very kind of you.

You're the one strawmanning. I've ripped off entire plot lines from video games. I'm mining BG3, stole the entire plot line of Assassin's Creed Odyssey.

If you can post anywhere have claimed 4E is WoW? I'll save you the effort you can't. It's not what's wrong with 4E in any event anyway

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're the obe strawmanning. I've ripped off entire plot lines from video games. I'm mining BG3, stole the entire plot line of Assassin's Creed Odyssey.

If you can post anywhere have claimed 4E is WoW? I'll save you the effort you can't. It's not what's wrong with 4E in any event anyway

I did not claim that. I never--not once--have claimed anyone here said that. YOU invented that to mock fans of 4e, to dismiss our legitimate frustrations and continue your own crusade.

If you can find a single place where I ever--EVER, on this ENTIRE forum--claimed that ANYONE was saying that 4e was identical to WoW, or even that 4e was made to imitate WoW as precisely as possible, then I will resign from the board and never post here again.

I guarantee you'll never do so, because I've never said that.

 

[Zardnaar]

I can absolutely assure you that with just minor investment in magic items, 2e characters can definitely well outstrip 5e ones. Getting negative numbers for THAC0 was not hard. Which, yes, meant that the whole purpose of THAC0 was lost, because now you "needed" to roll numbers too small for the die to roll in order to hit armor class 0--meaning, AC 0 was a guaranteed hit unless you were debuffed, and the "real" AC 0 for you was some negative number instead.

I didn't mention 2E I was comparing to B/X.

Think I did compare 5E to BECMI. At level 20 with 18 strength BECMI was +13 vs 5E +11 with 20 strength.

Capped scores that's more B/X, lower numbers B/X. Magic items capped at +3 is B/X.

AD&D has higher numbers cf B/X and 5E less than 3.X.

 

[Zardnaar]

I did not claim that. I never--not once--have claimed anyone here said that. YOU invented that to mock fans of 4e, to dismiss our legitimate frustrations and continue your own crusade.

If you can find a single place where I ever--EVER, on this ENTIRE forum--claimed that ANYONE was saying that 4e was identical to WoW, or even that 4e was made to imitate WoW as precisely as possible, then I will resign from the board and never post here again.

I guarantee you'll never do so, because I've never said that.

I did not claim that. I never--not once--have claimed anyone here said that. YOU invented that to mock fans of 4e, to dismiss our legitimate frustrations and continue your own crusade.

If you can find a single place where I ever--EVER, on this ENTIRE forum--claimed that ANYONE was saying that 4e was identical to WoW, or even that 4e was made to imitate WoW as precisely as possible, then I will resign from the board and never post here again.

I guarantee you'll never do so, because I've never said that.

Well you have it straight from the horses mouth about NMO influence. Straight from the design team.

Not my fault you don't like that statement. You xant really jump up and down claiming edition warring trying to shut down people's opinions you don't like.

You're constant dumping on 3.5 and 5E and 5.5. OSR less so.

Notice we don't really calm you out on it? It's your opinion I don't really care if you don't like any edition of the game for whatever reason you state. It's your opinion.

See the difference?

4E main problem is it's playstyle not specific mechanics or inspiration. Casuals don't like complexity and 4E has that focus on tactical skirmish pushing minis around the map. If you like that cool gold star. You don't get to tell everyone else their opinions are wrong.

I don't really have a favorite edition so that helps. If you only like 1 specific edition......

 

[Aldarc]

Well you have it straight from the horses mouth about NMO influence. Straight from the design team.

Not my fault you don't like that statement. You xant really jump up and down claiming edition warring trying to shut down people's opinions you don't like.

You're constant dumping on 3.5 and 5E and 5.5. OSR less so.

Notice we don't really calm you out on it? It's your opinion I don't really care if you don't like any edition of the game for whatever reason you state. It's your opinion.

See the difference?

4E main problem is it's playstyle not specific mechanics or inspiration. Casuals don't like complexity and 4E has that focus on tactical skirmish pushing minis around the map. If you like that cool gold star. You don't get to tell everyone else their opinions are wrong.

I don't really have a favorite edition so that helps. If you only like 1 specific edition......

Do we need to tap again what Steffan already wrote before?

There's a pretty big difference between "How can we make a game that appeals to people who enjoy Everquest and WoW?" and "Let's make a game that's a tabletop version of an MMO." 4e is the former, not the latter.

Or are you still unable to tell the difference between the two below points? Because your post reads like you can't tell the difference between the former and the latter.

 

[Zardnaar]

Do we need to tap again what Steffan already wrote before?

Or are you still unable to tell the difference between the two below points? Because your post reads like you can't tell the difference between the former and the latter.

I thought influence from MMOs was sufficient to indicate that. Never claimed 4E was an MMO in paper form.

Never played MMOs thought the concept was crap. Wife did so learnt terminology from her.