D&D 5E Critiquing the System

[DND_Reborn]

I never played 4E, but I was bummed when I saw many things from SWSE weren't ported over into D&D.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I call that edition "ee". "Embarrassment edition".

 

[generic]

I call that edition "ee". "Embarrassment edition".

Well, 4E is not exactly awful. It merely contravenes some of the conventions of other definitions.

 

[Oofta]

Well, 4E is not exactly awful. It merely contravenes some of the conventions of other definitions.

It's tough to discuss 4E without getting into edition wars ... but to me it always felt like a very different game. Not necessarily a bad game, but more of a card based tactical war game with too much going on at higher levels which caused gameplay to bog down.

I enjoyed it well enough at lower levels and the design seemed simple but the interaction of powers/interrupts/interrupts of interrupts at high level had me looking for a new game when 5E came out.

 

[generic]

It's tough to discuss 4E without getting into edition wars ... but to me it always felt like a very different game. Not necessarily a bad game, but more of a card based tactical war game with too much going on at higher levels which caused gameplay to bog down.

I enjoyed it well enough at lower levels and the design seemed simple but the interaction of powers/interrupts/interrupts of interrupts at high level had me looking for a new game when 5E came out.

It seems that the main problem with 4E was that it did not 'feel like D&D', which I am able to understand. Its ability structure was distinct, and it had an altogether unusual system of powers, rather than ordinary features, leading some people to assume that it was too simple to be D&D, or that it mirrored video games in terms of class design and class structure. I believe that 4E deserves more credit for skill challenges and combat roles, but it is certainly true that its design principles were divisive.

 

[Oofta]

It seems that the main problem with 4E was that it did not 'feel like D&D', which I am able to understand. Its ability structure was distinct, and it had an altogether unusual system of powers, rather than ordinary features, leading some people to assume that it was too simple to be D&D, or that it mirrored video games in terms of class design and class structure. I believe that 4E deserves more credit for skill challenges and combat roles, but it is certainly true that its design principles were divisive.

I'm not sure if I ever could really put my finger on why it didn't "feel" like D&D other than all classes using the same play structure. That and individual powers were so detailed that it was difficult to customize much.

Using detailed powers was designed to limit abuse by power gamers according to the devs, but it also seemed to limit improvisation. Maybe. Like I said, I could never quite put my finger on it, I just burned out on it in a way that I didn't experience with other editions.

 

[generic]

I'm not sure if I ever could really put my finger on why it didn't "feel" like D&D other than all classes using the same play structure. That and individual powers were so detailed that it was difficult to customize much.

Using detailed powers was designed to limit abuse by power gamers according to the devs, but it also seemed to limit improvisation. Maybe. Like I said, I could never quite put my finger on it, I just burned out on it in a way that I didn't experience with other editions.

The inclusion of powers with very explicit names and definitions was creativity-limiting. Although, I don't think that was the intent of the designers, as you stated. Additionally, the roles felt 'baked-in' to the classes. You could no longer play a customized Wizard who was a party 'leader' or a 'skirmisher'. No, your Wizard was a Striker, and there was no way that could be escaped.

 

[Aldarc]

I call that edition "ee". "Embarrassment edition".

I disagree, and we should probably not venture into Edition War territory.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Im not saying that 4 and 5 are impossible to be creative with. But no editions prior to them were so gun ho about punishing you for wanting to be creative or smart. Yes 5e is better than 4e in this but you have to admit it still has a tendancy to do it more than the 3 editions preceding 4e. They really dont want to let you soar. Again, 5e is sorta ok with improvisation but only if you do everything by the KISS standard. Lotta cool things about 5e. That's not one of em.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I disagree, and we should probably not venture into Edition War territory.

You cant disagree with what i call something. Thats weird. That i called something something is immutable. I do call it that. With everyone i ever mention it to. All my friends. Other people. Thats not an opinion. It came out of my mouth.

But ok. No edition wars. Just saw your posts. The first 3 are my favs though.