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

[doctorbadwolf]

Casters generally don't get ability mod to their attacks or damage

Yes, they do. What are you on about with this?

Spell attacks use your Spellcasting ability mod. Spell save DCs add your Spellcasting ability mod.

Everyone adds an ability score mod to every attack they make in 5e.

 

[billd91]

Yeah, I probably should've mentioned this. This is another one that is....complicated. I, personally, think the 5e designers made a serious error by making short rests be an hour long. I think they thought it was much more thematic to make them be long, and vastly underestimated player reluctance to spend an hour on a short rest (which does little to nothing for several classes, mostly spellcasters). Like, I completely grant that the structure came from 4e, but that one "small" change (twelve times the duration!!) has enormous knock-on effects. That Crawford has openly admitted that people aren't using short rests as much as intended is, IMO, proof positive that they were merely copying the superficial structure, not the spirit of the rule.

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.

 

[billd91]

One aspect of 5e that's very 4e is the Barbarian. I don't think the Barbarian would have kept on being a class of its own and not a Fighter Subclass if 4e hadn't introduced the Primal Power Source to its lore! Without 4e we wouldn't have the Totem Barbarian or the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, the Storm Barbarian or the Path of the Beast one, etc.

They would have just made a Berserker subclass for the fighter and call it a day! You can bet on it.

Considering the barbarian seemed fairly popular in 3e, that's a really weird position to hold. What evidence do you have that WotC would have folded the barbarian into the fighter considering they're the ones who reversed 2e doing that when they wrote 3e?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There's three healing spells that are bonus actions in 5E...out of 26 listed with the healing tag in D&DBeyond.

This is a seemingly disingenuous nitpick. The bonus action healing spells are incredibly popular, and make up the greatest part of combat healing in 5e. That comes directly from 4e.

This comes across as you setting out to conclude that 5e isn’t like 4e.

 

[overgeeked]

And many of those objections are nitpicking and trying to break a single sentence out of a whole.

First, there are more than 50 NWPs in the 2e PHB and the number expands a lot as you go deeper into the various supplements. Second I'm thinking of things like

Direction Sense: A character with this proficiency has an innate sense of direction. By concentrating for 1d6 rounds, the character can try to determine the direction the party is headed. If the check fails but is less than 20, the character errs by 90 degrees. If a 20 is rolled, the direction chosen is exactly opposite the true heading. (The DM rolls the check.)​

Furthermore, when traveling in the wilderness, a character with direction sense has the chance of becoming lost reduced by 5%​

It's that sort of finicky subsystem that you're trying to claim is even vaguely like the 5e skill system.

Finicky is in the eyes of the beholder. Like the Becoming Lost section of the DMG. Like how hiding works in 5E. Like how foraging works. The difference is 2E put many of those subsystems in the proficiencies section in the PHB and expanded on them in the DMG. 5E mentions them in the PHB but mostly hides the finicky subsystems in the DMG. They're still there.

Weapon proficiencies are not NWPs. Apples to oranges.

Different levels of ability doing a thing based on investment of resources. Same, same.

The way 4e was different here was that 4e dropped any approximation of BAB. Or the different class based attack matrices or THAC0. 5e follows in 4e's footsteps here, completely breaking from the past.

Uh...except they just standardized the BAB. Everyone has the same basic attack bonus, 1/2 level.

Casters get ability mod to attacks and damage when using weapons. It might be lower (it might not). As I say the spell system isn't the same.

Right. In 4E everyone got to use their relevant stat as a mod to attack and damage for their assumed attacks. They don't in 5E.

Maybe you've house ruled that out, but the actual rules as presented in the PHB p15 says "Alternatively, you can use the fixed value shown in your class entry, which is the average result of the hit die roll (rounded up)". Core rules.

Interesting selective quotation. Note the first word in your quoted sentence. "Alternately"...as in optionally. As in that's not the default assumption. The bit you didn't quote is where is says you roll your hit dice every time you gain a level. And alternately, optionally, you can take the average. It's core in the same way that flanking, feats, and multiclassing are. They're presented in the core books, but they're optional rules.

And healing word is the one normally used. 4e had standard action healing abilities as well.

What a waste of a spell slot.

Nope. You're the one spinning and nitpicking.

LOL. Pot meet kettle.

OK. Let's reality check this assertion of yours. A 5e ogre is CR2 and has 59 hit points. That should be a balanced encounter for a party of four second level characters. Which four characters do you think at second level (and remember this isn't a hard fight) are doing an average of 15hp per hit? For that matter we can use four CR 1/2 orcs instead - each of which has 15hp. And this time we're going to have to do not so much an average of 15hp - but hits above 15hp waste their damage.

1st-level party. Assuming 18 +4 in relevant stats. Fighter: greatsword or maul for 2d6+4, averages 11 hp per. Cleric: sacred flame or toll the dead for 1d8/1d12, averages 4.5/6.5 hp per. Wizard: fire bolt for 1d10, averages 5.5 hp per. Rogue: sneak attack on any 1d6 finesse or ranged weapon for 2d6+4, averages 11 hp per. Adding that up...11+4.5/6.5+5.5+11=32 lower average or 34 higher average. And the rogue could use a 1d8 or 1d10 ranged weapon to bump that up to 1-2 points, but then reloading for the crossbow, etc. So in four average hits the classic D&D party deals between 32-36 damage. The actual range is 14-56 damage from four hits.

Now, let's compare that to CR1 creatures. Let's see. Half-ogre 30 hp. So four average hits. Duergar 26 hp. Dryad 22 hp. Copper dragon wyrmling 22 hp. Bronze dragon wyrmling (CR2) 32 hp. Brass dragon wyrmling 16 hp. White dragon wyrmling (CR2) 32 hp. Green dragon wyrmling (CR2) 38 hp...so five average hits. Black dragon wyrmling (CR2) 33 hp. Spined devil (CR2) 22 hp. Imp 10 hp. Quasit 7 hp. Bugbear 27 hp. Orc (CR1/2) 15 hp. Two average hits. Hmm. Ghast (CR2) 36 hp. Ghoul 22 hp. Gith monk (CR2) 38 hp. Gnoll (CR1/2) 22 hp. 2-3 average hits. Hmm. Goblin (CR1/4) 7 hp. One average hit. Hmm. Goblin boss 21 hp. Grick (CR2) 27 hp. Harpy 38 hp.

So a 1st-level party of four vs one CR1 creature (the assumed default of 5E), the fight ends once the group lands four average hits. If you use two CR1/2 creatures instead...the fight ends once the group lands...four average hits. If you use four CR1/4 creatures instead...the fight ends...wait for it...once the group lands...four average hits. Spooky. It's almost like there's math involved.

And note none of this involves expending resources. This is all at-wills/cantrips and basically infinite use weapon attacks.

5e has a significant amount of hit point bloat. It is IMO a serious flaw with the edition, especially as it has nowhere near the tactical level of 4e.

Now let's compare the above to the same from 4E.

1st-level party. Assuming 18 +4 in relevant stats. Fighter: heavy flail or maul for 2d6+4, averages 11 hp per. Cleric: lance of faith for 1d8+4, averages 8.5 per. Wizard: magic missile for 2d4+4, averages 9. Rogue: sneak attack on any 1d6 weapon for 3d6+4, averages 14.5. Adding that up...11+8.5+9+14.5=43. And that ignores all the riders along with the rogue using a more damaging weapon. So in four average hits the classic D&D party deals 43 damage. The actual range is 24-62 damage from four hits.

I don't need to list various creatures from 4E because the devs were nice enough to give us the math. The average is 8+Con+(levelx8). So assuming a 16 Con, a 1st-level standard monster averages 32 hp. (Weird. That's almost exactly what a CR1 5E monster has. Hmm.) So the average party of four can down one standard monster in 3-4 hits. But...in 4E the encounter design was balanced around 1 standard monster per 1 PC. So our four heroes would face off against four standard monsters (or their equivalents, i.e. 1 elite for 2 standard, 1 solo for 4 standard, 4 minions for 1 standard, and/or traps, skill challenges, etc). So if it will take four average hits to down one standard monster and the party is facing four standard monsters...it will take about 16 hits to end the fight. Roughly four times as long as a 5E fight. Give or take.

And note none of that involves even using encounter powers, the assumed resources you're meant to spend. On average they simply do double damage vs at-wills...2[W] instead of 1[W] or 2d10 instead of 1d10. So using encounter powers would halve the number of hits. So the four encounter hits would be 2 each, and the at-wills would be 1 each. So you're talking about 12 average hits including encounter powers.

 

[billd91]

Things that I believe to be from 4e, or to have at least taken inspiration from it are:

It's not really a question of inspiration - 4e was the generation directly before 5e. Things evolved from 4e, rather than were inspired by 4e. So it's not that surprising that there are elements of design that come directly from previous editions of D&D whether ascending ACs, d20+stat+skill rank/proficiency bonus, or unlimited cantrips. It just took a lot from too far into the fringe territory and pushed it into D&D market sweet spot territory.

 

[overgeeked]

proficiency bonus is a slower increasing +half level to your skills and attacks and is also less prevalent since you only get it if you're proficient in the weapon or skill rather than getting it to everything

I think that's where the idea of 4E/2=5E comes from. Because that's almost literally the math. In 4E it's +1/2 level; in 5E it's 1 + 1/4 level. In combat, most 5E character are doing about 1/2 the damage they were in 4E, but monster hp (or rather encounter hp) is about 1/4 what it was in 4E.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

When one of the lead designers explicitly says that a core design assumption--that you'd be getting two to three short rests per day, which is what makes classes like Warlock and subclasses like Champion work in 5e--fails to be true specifically because players take too few short rests per long rest, I don't think it's that weird to say that the length of the short rests vs. long rests might be part of the problem.

And yes, I've crunched the numbers. Champions can keep up with BMs if they get enough rounds of attacking each day. You only see the numbers converge at about 7-8 encounters per day, with 6 the gap is debatable, anything less it's obvious (when looking at aggregate numbers for the day, of course). Warlock is in a more-or-less similar boat; I haven't crunched the numbers as thoroughly as I have with Champ vs BM, but my looser estimates corroborate the "6 (mostly-combat) encounters is good enough, 8 is pretty clearly balanced."

Most groups have fewer than 5 combats per day, and most groups have 1-2 short rests per day. This is negatively affecting the play-experience of 5e, enough that one of the designers explicitly spoke about the problem of short rest vs. long rest frequency. The amount of time taken by short resting three times per day is a full third of the time you'd spend on taking a long rest. It definitely doesn't help matters.

I get that some people like having short-rests come with some kind of "cost." The problem is that they already had the uphill battle of convincing casters and other non-short-rest-based characters to take them. That extra "cost" in time-investment has made the 5MWD problem worse, not better, which isn't a mark in 5e's favor.

 

[overgeeked]

When one of the lead designers explicitly says that a core design assumption--that you'd be getting two to three short rests per day, which is what makes classes like Warlock and subclasses like Champion work in 5e--fails to be true specifically because players take too few short rests per long rest, I don't think it's that weird to say that the length of the short rests vs. long rests might be part of the problem.

And yes, I've crunched the numbers. Champions can keep up with BMs if they get enough rounds of attacking each day. You only see the numbers converge at about 7-8 encounters per day, with 6 the gap is debatable, anything less it's obvious (when looking at aggregate numbers for the day, of course). Warlock is in a more-or-less similar boat; I haven't crunched the numbers as thoroughly as I have with Champ vs BM, but my looser estimates corroborate the "6 (mostly-combat) encounters is good enough, 8 is pretty clearly balanced."

Most groups have fewer than 5 combats per day, and most groups have 1-2 short rests per day. This is negatively affecting the play-experience of 5e, enough that one of the designers explicitly spoke about the problem of short rest vs. long rest frequency. The amount of time taken by short resting three times per day is a full third of the time you'd spend on taking a long rest. It definitely doesn't help matters.

I get that some people like having short-rests come with some kind of "cost." The problem is that they already had the uphill battle of convincing casters and other non-short-rest-based characters to take them. That extra "cost" in time-investment has made the 5MWD problem worse, not better, which isn't a mark in 5e's favor.

The only solution I see is to make all resources recharge on short rests. If you have a split, like now, then you will have groups take fewer short rests and the short-rest classes are screwed. If you make all resources long-rest recharge then you're going back to purely 5 minute work days. Only by pushing everything to short-rest recharge will they be able to balance things. Or return to 4E's silos of everyone getting short-rest and long-rest resources...but that only extends the 5 minute work day to an hour or so, maybe 2-3 fights before a long rest. They really did make a lot of bizarre assumptions about how the game should be played and designed it around that. Four-person parties, two short rests per day, mostly fighting one monster at a time, and 6-8 combats per day. So strange.

I think James Wyatt said it best, "The fact is that a fight against a group of monsters is often just more fun than a fight against a single monster. And by “more fun” I mean a lot of things—more dangerous, more tense, more dramatic, more exciting, more dynamic."

 

[RATUTHOM]

Yeah, they're drastically different. They have entirely different goals.

5e is narrative first. The game design is centered around coming up with narrative ideas and then translating them into mechanics.

4e is strategy first. The game design starts with how do we make this an engaging and challenging tactical game and then let's find narrative explanations for the mechanics after we've made them.

They're opposites and the play experience bears that out.

To me, both are the latter.

In 5e, there are many features which are not tightly narrative based. How is it possible for a rogue to sneak attack an ooze or a fire elemental? And how is it possible that by standing near your paladin you become literally better at dodging fireballs?

However, from a mechanical standpoint, they are acceptable.