• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E How is 5E like 4E?

Nefermandias

Adventurer
In general, I get the vague feeling that a fair number of the magic spells that were created by the pioneering players of early D&D were about trivializing travel and the exploration pillar.
You have to consider that casters used to prepare spells very differently than now days. Spell selection was a great part of the strategy and spells had to be assigned to specific slots.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You have to consider that casters used to prepare spells very differently than now days. Spell selection was a great part of the strategy and spells had to be assigned to specific slots.
And even with those higher costs people considered it worth spending spell slots to not play the travel and exploration game. Which says a lot about how much people enjoyed it back in the day.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
You have to consider that casters used to prepare spells very differently than now days. Spell selection was a great part of the strategy and spells had to be assigned to specific slots.
And the spells offered more flexibility in the sense of creative play, the old light spell for example. You can use it for when the torches to out...or you can use it to blind a target. Loved that so much.
 

loverdrive

Makin' cool stuff
It may be true that WotC's info suggests people use short rests less than expected, but I don't think making them an hour long was a mistake. Rather, it makes resting in a dangerous environment more of a complication. As far as I'm concerned, this is a good thing. But the fact remains that the actual length of the short rest/long rest mechanics can be very easily adjusted to suit the table. I like the 1 hour short rest - the 5ish minutes of 4e was far too short.
I think that both 4e and 5e made a mistake of tying the resource recharge to in-game time instead of scenes and sessions.
 

loverdrive

Makin' cool stuff
It’s a game. What’s the cost of having fun?
I mean... If you have to consciously take an option that worsens your position in the game and your ability to contribute in order to have fun, there's something wrong with the design in the first place.

I call that "Dark Souls shield problem" (in Dark Souls PWE shields are very effective, but boring af), but I guess someone smarter than me has a fancier term.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
I think that both 4e and 5e made a mistake of tying the resource recharge to in-game time instead of scenes and sessions.
Sort of. In 4E encounter powers were just that, based on the encounter or scene. They were technically tied to a 5-minute rest, but that's functionally meaningless 99% of the time. Though I agree about the longer rests in 5E and extended rest in 4E.
I mean... If you have to consciously take an option that worsens your position in the game and your ability to contribute in order to have fun, there's something wrong with the design in the first place.
Up to a point, yes. But fun shouldn't be contingent on always doing what's optimal or trying to win. Especially in an RPG. The point is the story and drama and playing a role, not optimization or "winning" the game.
I call that "Dark Souls shield problem" (in Dark Souls PWE shields are very effective, but boring af), but I guess someone smarter than me has a fancier term.
No idea what shields are like in Dark Souls.
 


loverdrive

Makin' cool stuff
Up to a point, yes. But fun shouldn't be contingent on always doing what's optimal or trying to win. Especially in an RPG. The point is the story and drama and playing a role, not optimization or "winning" the game.
Yeah, but I think that story and drama shouldn't be a result of the player purposefully making a bad move with nothing to show for it.

There's a quote from st. Vincent that I absolutely subscribe to:
I don't want to hurt your character and then point to the rules and say "they, they made me hurt your character!" That's not what I'm getting at.

I want, if I don't hurt your character, I want you to point to the rules and say, "hey, why didn't you follow the rules? Why did you cheat and let my guy off the hook? That sucked." I want the rules to create a powerful expectation between us - part of our unity of interest - that I will hurt your character. Often and hard.

While he's talking about the game master, it applies to the players too. I, the player, don't want to deliberately make a bad choice that puts at risk my position and control over the game state when I have a better option.

I want to have options that all are bad for my character.

No idea what shields are like in Dark Souls.
They are exactly what I've described. They give protection and let the player to avoid the fun part of Dark Souls combat system -- taking bold risks, attacking and dodging just at the right time. Actually, they are less effective than two-handing a bid anime sword in the hands of a skilled player, but in order to become a skilled player you have to ditch the shield... So many newbies are running slowly crawling around with shield+spear combo and generally have a pretty bad time. Then, they either "get" it or drop the game, because it's boring.

In Bloodborne, where combat is generally similar, there are no shields... So the player must learn to play aggressively, in a risky, fun way. Many of them then go back to Dark Souls, play it the Bloodborne way and have loads of fun.
 

Up to a point, yes. But fun shouldn't be contingent on always doing what's optimal or trying to win. Especially in an RPG. The point is the story and drama and playing a role, not optimization or "winning" the game.
D&D's focus on trying to kill you as the loss condition makes 'winning' synonymous with 'continuing to be able to play this character'.
No idea what shields are like in Dark Souls.
It turns the game into an obnoxious rhythm game rather than an obnoxious action game people like to berate each other over.
 



overgeeked

B/X Known World
D&D's focus on trying to kill you as the loss condition makes 'winning' synonymous with 'continuing to be able to play this character'.
But losing a character isn't "losing the game", so continuing to play that particular character isn't "winning the game". Playing is winning, not playing is losing. Unless your DM is an absolute ass...it only takes a few minutes at worst to create a new character to pick up and play after the last one died. unless of course you know character death is an option so have a character or two ready to play at all times. Considering it's a fantasy action-adventure game where death is the only constant, it's probably best practices to have a few spare characters handy. If "not being able to play" while you make a new character is "losing" then so should "not being able to play" while you're stun locked or frightened. In all three you're not actually doing anything so you're not playing. If not playing is losing...
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
What 5e did was go back to having a Rookie Tier.
They definitely prepended a tier... it went into my calculations when I was estimating the approx conversions which confirm the math scale was 2x.
I want to have options that all are bad for my character.
Can we settle for a bit of "yes... but".
More clearly perhaps your option is "good" but only up to a point and which bring up the fact that you didnt pick the other option which was situationally better.
 


overgeeked

B/X Known World
Not if this character is where you perceive your interest to be ... hence playing another character is losing.
If you're only going to play if you can play that one precious character, then you should be writing stories with them as the protagonist not putting them into an RPG where character death is a possibility. If the stance is you get to play that one character and they're walking around with infinite plot armor or you as a player walk...then there's the door. You're clearly not interested in playing an RPG. Is that the player equivalent of the frustrated novelist DM who railroads everything into their precious preplanned story? The frustrated novelist player who can't handle their character being at risk?
 



Dausuul

Legend
The problem with "travel survival" challenges in D&D is that the designers have never figured out how to make them interesting or fun; so the burden of accomplishing that goal rests entirely on the DM. An experienced DM, with sufficient design talent and motivation, can make it work. But otherwise it quickly turns into a pointless exercise in dice rolling and bookkeeping.
 

loverdrive

Makin' cool stuff
One with no random chance, no drama, and no tension? Yeah. Sure, that's certainly an option.
Where do "no drama" and "no tension"come from? The PC can't die in Apocalypse World, unless the player explicitly decides so, and in all AW games I've run or played there were tons of drama and tons of tension. My Swords Under The Sun, where one must either try really hard or be a complete moron to die in a meaningless conflict, is a goddamn suffering simulator, where everyone loses everything they hold dear and envy the dead, who don't have to suffer anymore.

So, no, not wanting the character to die is not the same as not wanting drama or tension. Death often resolves all drama and tension.

I don't want my characters to die. I want them to suffer. I want them to pray to all the ugliest fattest cannibal gods to give them the sweet gift of death.

And I don't think dying from a random goblin is dramatic at all. Real people in chaotic real life die for no reason, important characters die to make a statement. Obi Wan Kenobi didn't just lose in the fight with Darth Wader, he died, because the cause was worth dying for.
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top