D&D 5E Giving 5th Edition a look but...

[Dannorn]

Ok so I've not been keeping up with any info about D&D Next, 5th Edition, whatever they're calling it now other than when it's coming out. I plan on buying the Players Handbook eventually but was just wondering about something, hopefully some 4e players and people who've run the play test material can help me out.

Now I'll admit I never played 4th edition, I bought the Handbook, read up to the classes, and never touched it again. I was immediately turned off the game by the language used. What I mean is the way the classes were described seemed very rigid, very regimental. Fighter, these are your skills, you can be this kind of Fighter or this other kind of Fighter. It just didn't seem to allow any kind of flexibility or variation, which is one thing I loved about older versions of D&D, 3rd in particular. In 3e I could be a Wizard running around with a greatsword, or a Fighter who used social skills to avoid combat, or any other kind of character I could think of with a combination of feats and skills; they'd never be the best at any of those things but I could do it.

Now first question is did I misread 4e? Was it not actually that structured and you could play against type if you wanted to?

Second question, from the play test material does 5e have that same rigidity (real or imagined)? Does the class section basically hand me a completed character sheet or can I actually make a character from the ground up?

Unrelated, this was just something I found weird not something that turned me off 4e, does the Fighter still have spells? Why does/did the Fighter have spells?

 

[Teataine]

Uh, before this thread implodes: The fighter doesn't have spells in 4E. They have feats (you know, as in the actual dictionary definition of the word) of martial skill, endurance and strength. Those are trained maneuvers, tricks and combat techniques. Not spells.

Now in 5E you have at least two flavours (subclasses) of Fighter (from what we know so far). One is just a plain fighter that's almost as barebones as the AD&D one. You hit for huge damage, your crit goes up, you get more attacks per round, you're tough as nails and that's it. The other flavour has maneuvers and tricks in the style of 4E (tripping, pushing, disarming...), but repackaged in a more flexible mechanic.

I think that because of it's simple core and bounded accuracy, 5E is even more flexible than 3E. It might not have as many mechanical options out of the gate (and hopefuly it never will, because that's what killed the game for me), but you can certainly build all kinds of characters. A barbarian with two daggers, a wizard in armor, a pacifist fighter (using non-lethal maneuvers), I think they're all legit in 5E and more.

 

[Nebulous]

Now first question is did I misread 4e? Was it not actually that structured and you could play against type if you wanted to?

Second question, from the play test material does 5e have that same rigidity (real or imagined)? Does the class section basically hand me a completed character sheet or can I actually make a character from the ground up?

Unrelated, this was just something I found weird not something that turned me off 4e, does the Fighter still have spells? Why does/did the Fighter have spells?

I ran 4th edition as DM up until 12th level. I enjoyed it for a time, until such a time that i did not enjoy it, and at the same time I came to hate it. 4e is in fact an excellent squad based miniatures combat game and it nailed that perfectly.

1) In answer to your question, you could play all types of characters against type in 4th edition, but pretty much everything across the board game down to a class power that does damage and a condition (damage/slide, damage/prone, damage/push, etc.). I, personally, came to find this extremely unsatisfying and bland, although many people found it balanced and streamlined.

2) 5e is much more open, but you aren't going to find that much flexibility in the Basic Rules or Starter Set releasing today. that will come later with the Player's Handbook, and within the year, god knows how many modules and options will be out there.

3) The 4e Fighter had spell-like powers that were sometimes difficult to explain how they worked in combat. It was a gradual process of the higher level the fighter grew the more odd the powers. Although not *spells* technically they did the same thing as spells in 4e: damage and a condition. The 5th edition fighter does not have abilities like that at all from what i've seen. The Battlemaster has *maneuvers* but none of it seems magical or forces enemies to behave against their will.

 

[Thaumaturge]

You're pretty new around here. Welcome.

Realize for some people 4e is their favorite edition, and they post here, too. And you used quite a few trigger words for a number of people in your post.

Thaumaturge.

 

[1of3]

Now first question is did I misread 4e? Was it not actually that structured and you could play against type if you wanted to?

I think you are on the right track. The rules themselves were not that different from 3e but the presentation and formatting was more in kind with TCGs. That presentation alienated quite a lot of people.

I played a Half-Elf fighter, who was a pretty good diplomat in 4e. It wasn't hard to do.


Now, for 5e, from what you say, you might like it. Skills are quite seperate from class. So you can play a fighter with diplomacy or sciences or thief skills. The presentation is even less formal than 3.x and uses more natural language.

 

[jrowland]

Now I'll admit I never played 4th edition, I bought the Handbook, read up to the classes, and never touched it again. I was immediately turned off the game by the language used. What I mean is the way the classes were described seemed very rigid, very regimental. Fighter, these are your skills, you can be this kind of Fighter or this other kind of Fighter. It just didn't seem to allow any kind of flexibility or variation, which is one thing I loved about older versions of D&D, 3rd in particular. In 3e I could be a Wizard running around with a greatsword, or a Fighter who used social skills to avoid combat, or any other kind of character I could think of with a combination of feats and skills; they'd never be the best at any of those things but I could do it.

You will be able to customize the character. You could actually play against type in 4E, but at launch it certainly wasn't obvious. They updated as the game matured. In 5th you will be able to customize, but again it likely won't be obvious Probably more obvious customization than 4th but not as much out of the gate as 3rd. In this edition you can be a wizard with a greatsword and wear armor...not at 1st level, but you could build toward it (multi-classing, feats, etc). Skills are a bit toned down, but more broad. By that I mean, playing a social fighter is not only possible if you build for it, but even if you don't your fighter will do ok.

Now first question is did I misread 4e? Was it not actually that structured and you could play against type if you wanted to?

I don't think you misread it, there were more options as material was added, but if PHB is all you saw, you had the right impression. But in 4E, you have to include PHB2, PHB3, dragon/dungeon articles, etc. The online Character builder NOW has quite a lot of options, better multi-classing (hybrids) and such to build against type.

Second question, from the play test material does 5e have that same rigidity (real or imagined)? Does the class section basically hand me a completed character sheet or can I actually make a character from the ground up?

you'll be able to build a character from the ground up. The Basic rules will be released today and are FREE. Check it out. However, they won't include a lot of the customization you are looking for. Think of the 5th PHB as character customization rules for 5th Basic.

Unrelated, this was just something I found weird not something that turned me off 4e, does the Fighter still have spells? Why does/did the Fighter have spells?

Previous poster clarified pretty well. If you ever seen/read the Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords in 3rd edition, that is more like how 4th fighters are. Another way to look at is like 3rd edition feats like "whirlwind". In 3rd, you take the feat then you can use whirlwind attack. In 4th you simply pick whirlwind attack as one of your attacks (spells as you thought they were). In neither edition is it a spell, but I can see how it looks that way in 4th.

You probably won't be able to customize characters in full 3rd edition mode with just the PHB. The DMG will be the "Hackers Guide to D&D" and detail ways to customize the game, tweak classes, etc. That will be a DM and/or table decision, so if you're a player only and looking for a DM, some character customization options will be DM/table specific (ie get DMs permissions). That said, the game is being designed with customization in mind, so you should feel happy once all the options are published, so don't look at one product and dismiss it outright.

Free Basic Rules today (simple character creation of the core 4 classes, how to play, etc)
PHB August (all classes/sub-classes, feats, and other customization options)
DMG October (how to change game rules to fit your playstyle, customize even more, etc)

 

[Nebulous]

You probably won't be able to customize characters in full 3rd edition mode with just the PHB. The DMG will be the "Hackers Guide to D&D" and detail ways to customize the game, tweak classes, etc. That will be a DM and/or table decision, so if you're a player only and looking for a DM, some character customization options will be DM/table specific (ie get DMs permissions). That said, the game is being designed with customization in mind, so you should feel happy once all the options are published, so don't look at one product and dismiss it outright.

Free Basic Rules today (simple character creation of the core 4 classes, how to play, etc)
PHB August (all classes/sub-classes, feats, and other customization options)
DMG October (how to change game rules to fit your playstyle, customize even more, etc)

I would think that further into the development, 5th edition will be immensely customizable, on par with anything from 3e or 4e, but probably more broad. Then again, if I understand their goal correctly, a "4th-edition powers" book could be released to layer over your 5th edition character for that same 4e experience.

 

[the Jester]

Now first question is did I misread 4e? Was it not actually that structured and you could play against type if you wanted to?

Yes. Just for example, you could play a wizard and invest a couple of feats into using a sword and leather armor. Or a fighter, and invest a feat in Linguist to let you speak a bunch of extra languages.

Another thing is that 4e made it possible to make (f'rex) two wizards who were completely different because of your options in build. For a while, my party had an enchanter and a tome wizard in it. Both effective, but very, very different.

Second question, from the play test material does 5e have that same rigidity (real or imagined)? Does the class section basically hand me a completed character sheet or can I actually make a character from the ground up?

I think it will be remarkably flexible. Adding backgrounds to the core elements of your pc (class & race) will vastly increase the number of permutations, there are subclasses to customize your pc with, etc. Obviously it won't have anywhere near the amount of material that 3.x has, but that's what happens when you have a decade of books to draw on.

Unrelated, this was just something I found weird not something that turned me off 4e, does the Fighter still have spells? Why does/did the Fighter have spells?

They don't. They have martial exploits. The reason why (in design terms) was to make fighters less boring. "I attack. I attack. I attack..." gets old. But "I attack, do damage and push the bad guy into the bonfire" followed by "Now I attack and knock him prone" and then "I attack for triple damage, and even if I miss, I do half!" is pretty cool; it gives the fighter far more tactical flexibility than any version of D&D previously had done.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Now first question is did I misread 4e? Was it not actually that structured and you could play against type if you wanted to?

Well, kinda yes and kinda no. Depends on how you wanted to play against type. Nothing in 4e stopped your wizard from picking up a greatsword, and you could get that pretty much the same way that you could in 3e -- take a feat for it. Also, nothing stopped your fighter from being a Diplomancer, in much the same way (take some character options like Diplomacy training, give your fighter a decent CHA, and you're off to the races).

The origin of that language/rigidity you were seeing was 4e trying to help newbies avoid making poor choices. Like, spending a feat on a greatsword for your wizard doesn't make her a better wizard, and because there's an opportunity cost there, it actually makes her a WORSE wizard that someone who used that feat to up her wizarding. And by "wizard," 4e means "controller," because the combat roles are how characters' actions are primarily contextualized. But basically it was 4e's effort to try and make people think before taking things that would not improve their character's ability to contribute to their role in combat.

So it wasn't so much "You have to meet this archetype!" as it was "If you want to mechanically do X, take class/subclass Y and you will be able to."

Second question, from the play test material does 5e have that same rigidity (real or imagined)? Does the class section basically hand me a completed character sheet or can I actually make a character from the ground up?

Depends on your level of modularization. At the Basic level, it's intended to be kind of an intro product, so there's not a lot of decisions to make. No feats, for instance. But the PHB is basically a book full o' character modules, so that will likely provide the level of customization you're looking for.

Unrelated, this was just something I found weird not something that turned me off 4e, does the Fighter still have spells? Why does/did the Fighter have spells?

If by "spells" you mean basically consumable powers with defined effects, the reason was basically to give the fighter something concrete and interesting that it could do every round without having to ask the DM's permission every time.

Something like Tide of Iron is basically a more codified way to say "I hit him and push him back with my sheild!"

The 5e fighter, at least at the Basic level, doesn't have those same codified manuevers, leaving it up to DM's to adjudicate such things. They get extra attacks and self-heals and such instead.

 

[Li Shenron]

Second question, from the play test material does 5e have that same rigidity (real or imagined)? Does the class section basically hand me a completed character sheet or can I actually make a character from the ground up?

I can't speak for 4e, but I can say that you'll find 5e to be at least as flexible as 3e, but not in every single aspect of character creation.

3e had more fiddly bits, particularly with the skill points system and with the feats.

5e doesn't have skill points, instead it has fixed progression in the skills you're proficient since the beginning (with limited opportunities to add more later). However, it will be easy to re-introduce a skill-points system if you want, maybe this option will be explicitly presented in the DMG, but even if not, it's not hard to figure out how to do it.

5e has bigger and rare feats (about 2-3 times bigger than 3e feats) and not earlier than 4th level, so less customization freedom here. OTOH, it's not mandatory to take a feat because it can be replaced with an ability score increase.

5e doesn't have prestige classes (yet) but has subclasses. The flexibility might be about the same in this case, once you factor in the (optional, presumably in the DMG) rules for mixing different subclasses.

Also remember that 5e has less restrictions, e.g. all skills are available to everyone, spellcasting in armor can be learned, multiclassing spellcasters presumably work fine, it's open for every class to learn some low-level spells without multiclassing etc.

Personally, I see 5e mainly as an evolution of 3e, with simplified combat rules (in their core form, with options for adding complications later) and more emphasis on narrative.