D&D 5E How is 5E like 4E?

[Vaalingrade]

And we're not talking about real life.

'We' aren't the ones trying to assert that people who don't play nearly suicidal characters don't support the troops or first responders as if that were in any way relevant to the conversation.

 

[Undrave]

That low INT fighter isn't going to be wearing the best armor all the time. They're going to Leeroy Jenkins a lot of monsters. Sure, they'll die. But they're also too dumb to realize how much risk is involved. Again, it's about role-playing the character. I'm willing to bet your INT is higher than the 8 INT fighter. You are aware of the risks...that fighter probably isn't. So to role-play that INT 8 fighter you can't be overly worried about the risks. That's literally metagaming.

Yes, some characters will be too dumb and take the 'fun' option instead of the safe one...

But you can't criticise players if they decide that THEIR CHARACTER would take the OBVIOUS safe option that's right there in the game. If the game has ways to skip issues during exploration and someone decide their characters will use that option, then you can't blame them for it and say it's their fault their not having fun. The game is at fault for not making the options more entertaining.

 

[overgeeked]

'We' aren't the ones trying to assert that people who don't play nearly suicidal characters don't support the troops or first responders as if that were in any way relevant to the conversation.

You've lost the plot, old bean.

Yes, some characters will be too dumb and take the 'fun' option instead of the safe one...

But you can't criticise players if they decide that THEIR CHARACTER would take the OBVIOUS safe option that's right there in the game. If the game has ways to skip issues during exploration and someone decide their characters will use that option, then you can't blame them for it and say it's their fault their not having fun. The game is at fault for not making the options more entertaining.

Sure. But that's a metagaming stance to take. It comes from the player, not the character. No hyper-cautious character would ever seek out the life of an itinerant adventurer who's job it is to risk their life delving dungeons, murdering whatever random monsters or humanoids they come across, only to rifle through the fresh corpses' pockets, and steal whatever is in their home that's of value and not nailed down. Pirates, criminals, conquistadors, adrenaline junkies, thrill-seekers...gasp adventurers are all better models for adventurers than your average chartered accountant. You can't be both hyper-cautious and an adventurer. Those are contradictory positions. The hyper-cautious Mr Anchovy is going to stick with chartered accountancy...not become a lion tamer. The nutjobs are the ones who hear the job description of an adventurer (murder, mayhem, and theft) and start drooling. Mr Anchovy sticks with running the numbers and lets someone else do the gulp dangerous stuff.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sure. But that's a metagaming stance to take. It comes from the player, not the character. No hyper-cautious character would ever seek out the life of an itinerant adventurer who's job it is to risk their life delving dungeons, murdering whatever random monsters or humanoids they come across, only to rifle through the fresh corpses' pockets, and steal whatever is in their home that's of value and not nailed down.

Just because you can only think of one possible archetype for an adventurer doesn't mean that there is only one. For example:

• Someone who wants to make vast amounts of wealth and then splurge it in towns because it's a rockstar lifestyle or to fund their gambling habit doesn't mysteriously have to rough it when they are adventuring
• Someone who is setting out to be the best like no one ever was can do so as a warrior or a wizard and doesn't have to rough it any more than they have to also become the best at math or flower arranging
• Someone who is on a quest to rescue [X] or take revenge on [Y] is going to try and avoid dying before their task is complete.
• Someone who has been ordered to do this by their God or their Patron might go - but that doesn't mean they're going to rough it more than they absolutely have to.
• An archeologist who wants to find out more about The Lost Knowledge of the Ancients won't be that eager for the "perish" part of "publish or perish" and is going to take precautions
• Someone who wants to make their mark in history wants to live that long so will try to mitigate the risk.

These are all legitimate reasons to adventure and the only metagaming I see here comes from you attempting to force people to be stupid and not use the tools at their disposal. Using Goodberry and the Tiny Hut ritual isn't "hyper-cautious", it's basic common sense.

 

[pemerton]

5e follows 4e, and differs from previous versions, in having spells that have constant effects rather than effects that scale with the level of the caster (eg d6/level damage, 10'/level range, etc).

 

[Staffan]

5e follows 4e, and differs from previous versions, in having spells that have constant effects rather than effects that scale with the level of the caster (eg d6/level damage, 10'/level range, etc).

Sort of. 3e has optional scaling though, where you can cast it at a higher level to do more damage (and occasionally other effects). But there's no option for the 4e wizard to cast fireball using their 9th, 15th, 19th, or any other slot in order to do more damage.

 

[pemerton]

Sort of. 3e has optional scaling though, where you can cast it at a higher level to do more damage (and occasionally other effects).

Do you mean 5e?

But there's no option for the 4e wizard to cast fireball using their 9th, 15th, 19th, or any other slot in order to do more damage.

That's for two resaons: (1) 4e doesn't use "slots", except (after a fashion) for 3 of its psionic classes; and (ii) because 4e breaks out each level of power as a separate thing, and scales up some (eg Come and Get It => Warrior's Urging; the charm effects whose names I can't remember in Heroes of the Feywild) but not others.

 

[Garthanos]

That's for two resaons: (1) 4e doesn't use "slots", except (after a fashion) for 3 of its psionic classes; and (ii) because 4e breaks out each level of power as a separate thing, and scales up some (eg Come and Get It => Warrior's Urging; the charm effects whose names I can't remember in Heroes of the Feywild) but not others.

I want Come and Get it to upgrade its range like it is in the movies the base version is more like moves I have seen real boxers do... it should be more dramatic and Warriors urging is not much more.

 

[Yaarel]

If 5e Persuasion and Intimidation skills can, in certain contexts, impose the Charmed and Frightened conditions, then it becomes no problem if some of the 5e martial Fighter features can too.

 

[Minigiant]

Sort of. 3e has optional scaling though, where you can cast it at a higher level to do more damage (and occasionally other effects). But there's no option for the 4e wizard to cast fireball using their 9th, 15th, 19th, or any other slot in order to do more damage.

Technically. You didn't have to upgrade and replace you leveled in 4e.

5e follows 4e, and differs from previous versions, in having spells that have constant effects rather than effects that scale with the level of the caster (eg d6/level damage, 10'/level range, etc).

This is because spells are all "spontaneous" in 5e. Because spells are not memorized to slots directly, there is no onus for spells to encapsulate all the combat power of a spell level due to utility, exploration, and social spells taking up slots.

In 4e they use different resources.
In 5e, you have scaling cantrips and spells free from slots.