• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

5E How To Clone 4E Using 5E Rules

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
Not including the Warlord put that out as an obvious lie to 4e fans.
Mearls really went out of his way to INCLUDE anything/everything fans of the Warlord said the game needed the Warlord /for/. The game needs to be able to model an Inspiring Leader! Ok, here's a feat /called/ Inspiring Leader, it's completely passive & blah, yet even a tad broken, there, you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone. You need to be able to rally allies to return to the fight! OK, here's a BM maneuver called 'Rally,' it's explicitly useless for getting a fallen ally back into the fight, but it's called Rally, so you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone. And, Commander's STrike, it was iconic! OK, here's a BM maneuver you can use half as often as an encounter power in 4e, that's not much like it at all, but is called Commander's Strike, so you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone. That's still not a martial leader. OK, ANTOHTER fighter sub-class, what's coming out next? SCAG? OK, Purple Dragon Knight, obscure PrC, it's totally martial, it leads, (Kobold Press, make that happen!) we even slipped in a little-w 'warlord' typo, so you know what it's for, there, you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone. There's still the tactical genius concept who helps his allies out that way. Way ahead of you, also in SKAG: the Mastermind, a Rogue sub-class with juiced-up Help actions, there you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone. We need the Warlord as a martial class that fills the support roll. Just re-skin a Valor Bard or War Cleric or Paladin, they're good in melee, great at support, just close your eyes and pretend it's not really magic! But none of that is anywhere near a Warlord. Fine! Fine! Here's half-finished fighter sub-class that's actually straight-up called a Warlord, there you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone.
Why not just a Warlord /class/?
Oh, it's too narrow a concept, couldn't possibly have enough sub-classes to fill it out, can't justify adding it to the game.

Final score:

Feats: 2 (inspiring leader, martial adept)
Maneuvers: 2-6, depending on how generous you're feeling (Commander's Strike & Rally at a minimum).
Sub-classes: 3-8 (Fighter: PDK, BM and Rogue: Mastermind, at a minimum. But each of the following have also been suggested as Warlord stand-ins: Fighter: Cavalier, Samurai; Cleric: War; Bard: valor; Paladin: Oath of the Crown)

Warlord: 0
 
I

Immortal Sun

Guest
Not including the Warlord put that out as an obvious lie to 4e fans.
While I'm not a huge stickler for including the Warlord, there are a number of elements that clearly mark 5E as "the edition for everyone but 4E fans". The fact that it doesn't include the AEDU system, or any way to even remotely replicate it and does include the Vancian casting system was pretty telling on its face who the intended target audience was.

Heck I'd even have been more accepting of the spell points system.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
If I may, I'd like to test a theory. So I'd like to ask two questions:
1. How long had you been playing, prior to the attempted 4e game?
2. How long did you attempt to play 4e?

I of course have a hypothesis, and this is a rather meager attempt to test it, but it's what I have.
Ok, OK, you built enough tension / anticipation - what was your hypothesis!?
 

dave2008

Adventurer
While I'm not a huge stickler for including the Warlord, there are a number of elements that clearly mark 5E as "the edition for everyone but 4E fans". The fact that it doesn't include the AEDU system, or any way to even remotely replicate it and does include the Vancian casting system was pretty telling on its face who the intended target audience was.

Heck I'd even have been more accepting of the spell points system.
IDK. I came back to D&D with 4e and I don't feel that 5e doesn't include a bit of 4e in it. I don't think it needs to model the AEDU system to have been influenced by 4e. In fact, I think there are traces of it (AEDU design principles) in their, but I don't know how you could fully incorporate it and also not have it (for those who didn't like it). I personally feel 5e did a pretty good job of incorporating parts of 4e along with parts of other editions. Is it full on 4e, no - but that would be really odd if it was.

PS, isn't there a spell point system included in the DMG?
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Mearls really went out of his way to INCLUDE anything/everything fans of the Warlord said the game needed the Warlord /for/. The game needs to be able to model an Inspiring Leader! Ok, here's a feat /called/ Inspiring Leader, it's completely passive & blah, yet even a tad broken, there, you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone. You need to be able to rally allies to return to the fight! OK, here's a BM maneuver called 'Rally,' it's explicitly useless for getting a fallen ally back into the fight, but it's called Rally, so you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone. And, Commander's STrike, it was iconic! OK, here's a BM maneuver you can use half as often as an encounter power in 4e, that's not much like it at all, but is called Commander's Strike, so you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone. That's still not a martial leader. OK, ANTOHTER fighter sub-class, what's coming out next? SCAG? OK, Purple Dragon Knight, obscure PrC, it's totally martial, it leads, (Kobold Press, make that happen!) we even slipped in a little-w 'warlord' typo, so you know what it's for, there, you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone. There's still the tactical genius concept who helps his allies out that way. Way ahead of you, also in SKAG: the Mastermind, a Rogue sub-class with juiced-up Help actions, there you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone. We need the Warlord as a martial class that fills the support roll. Just re-skin a Valor Bard or War Cleric or Paladin, they're good in melee, great at support, just close your eyes and pretend it's not really magic! But none of that is anywhere near a Warlord. Fine! Fine! Here's half-finished fighter sub-class that's actually straight-up called a Warlord, there you can't ask for that any more, you have it, done, leave me alone.
Why not just a Warlord /class/?
Oh, it's too narrow a concept, couldn't possibly have enough sub-classes to fill it out, can't justify adding it to the game.

Final score:

Feats: 2 (inspiring leader, martial adept)
Maneuvers: 2-6, depending on how generous you're feeling (Commander's Strike & Rally at a minimum).
Sub-classes: 3-8 (Fighter: PDK, BM and Rogue: Mastermind, at a minimum. But each of the following have also been suggested as Warlord stand-ins: Fighter: Cavalier, Samurai; Cleric: War; Bard: valor; Paladin: Oath of the Crown)

Warlord: 0
That soup is indeed a mess ...
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
So, 4e-esque.

HEROIC
1-4 (Student)
5-8 (Professional)

PARAGON
9-12 (Expert)
13-16 (Luminary)

EPIC
17-20 (Legend)
21-24 (Immortal!)
I was trying to respond to this earlier

i think if you consider 1 to 4 of 5e to have no analog in 4e you are closer to hitting the mark. They are not heroic.
 

Yaarel

Explorer
I was trying to respond to this earlier

i think if you consider 1 to 4 of 5e to have no analog in 4e you are closer to hitting the mark. They are not heroic.
I was thinking 4e-esque *5e*, but I agree with your assessment. So.

STUDENT
1-4 (Student)

HEROIC
5-8 (Professional)
9-12 (Master)

PARAGON
13-16 (Luminary, Great/Grand/Arch, Noble/Lord/Lady)
17-20 (Legend)

EPIC
21-24 (Immortal)



If so, it means that 4e Epic and 5e Epic are the same thing, with 5e still lacking rules for immortal characters of various flavors.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I was thinking 4e-esque *5e*, but I agree with your assessment. So.

STUDENT
1-4 (Student)

HEROIC
5-8 (Professional)
9-12 (Master)

PARAGON
13-16 (Luminary, Great/Grand/Arch, Noble/Lord/Lady)
17-20 (Legend)

EPIC
21-24 (Immortal)



If so, it means that 4e Epic and 5e Epic are the same thing, with 5e still lacking rules for immortal characters of various flavors.
Maybe depends on whether you consider 5e to have true Epic. If we take their proposed flavors at closer to its word it works out closer to 1 per 2 levels. But yes I think I see how maybe 5e characters are missing the sense of over all awesomeness that trading off either a feat or attribute in crease and the Missing story elements of paragon paths and Epic Destinies. And I have been considering adding to 5e things like "General Competency" so that heros get better faster and do indeed really outclass lower tier enemies.

Heck to be honest I thought there were issues of game board interfering with Epic being true to scale in 4e as well. In other arenas Rituals should be summoning armies of zombies and other elements not really fully developed like Martial Practices filling the same niche.
 
Last edited:

Yaarel

Explorer
Maybe depends on whether you consider 5e to have true Epic. If we take their proposed flavors at closer to its word it works out closer to 1 per 2 levels. But yes I think I see how maybe 5e characters are missing the sense of over all awesomeness that trading off either a feat or attribute in crease and the Missing story elements of paragon paths and Epic Destinies. And I have been considering adding to 5e things like "General Competency" so that heros get better faster and do indeed really outclass lower tier enemies.

Heck to be honest I thought there were issues of game board interfering with Epic being true to scale in 4e as well.
In other arenas Rituals should be summoning armies of zombies and other elements not really fully developed like Martial Practices filling the same niche.
4e "Epic Destinies" puts the finger on what is missing from 5e.
 

Yaarel

Explorer
I never played BECMI, but my impression is, the last initial Immortal is also part of the Epic tradition that is missing from 5e.

4e Epic is a good model for 5e Epic levels 21+ because it is still kinda sorta balanced enough to be playable.
 
I

Immortal Sun

Guest
IDK. I came back to D&D with 4e and I don't feel that 5e doesn't include a bit of 4e in it. I don't think it needs to model the AEDU system to have been influenced by 4e. In fact, I think there are traces of it (AEDU design principles) in their, but I don't know how you could fully incorporate it and also not have it (for those who didn't like it). I personally feel 5e did a pretty good job of incorporating parts of 4e along with parts of other editions. Is it full on 4e, no - but that would be really odd if it was.

PS, isn't there a spell point system included in the DMG?
There is, and it's a vastly more flexible, fluid, simple and understandable system. But because 3.5 Psionics gives it a horrible rep, it never sees play.

Sure, I understand 5E can't both have the AEDU system and Vancian magic. Even 3.5 (prior to Tome of Battle) had AEDU-lite elements (though mostly on monsters). 5E is closer to the way Tome of Battle was designed than the way 4E was designed (which was an evolution on ToB) but its clearly done to a degree that sits well with people who already found ToB material acceptable.
 

Yaarel

Explorer
Heck to be honest I thought there were issues of game board interfering with Epic being true to scale in 4e as well.
In other arenas Rituals should be summoning armies of zombies and other elements not really fully developed like Martial Practices filling the same niche.
It is sorta like,
• Heroic determines the fates of regions/towns (population 100s, 10,000s)
• Paragon determines the fates of nations/cities (populations millions, 100 millions)
• Epic determines the fates of planes/worlds (populations 10 billions and trillions)

Its like every two levels gets an extra zero, starting with 1 at 1.
 

Yaarel

Explorer
The number of persons whose life one impacts increases each level ...

1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000, 3000, 10 000, 30 000, 100 000, 300 000, and 1 million at level 13.

This is decent ballpark figure for a DM to keep in mind when think about the ‘scale’ of a campaign.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
It is sorta like,
• Heroic determines the fates of regions/towns (population 100s, 10,000s)
• Paragon determines the fates of nations/cities (populations millions, 100 millions)
• Epic determines the fates of planes/worlds (populations 10 billions and trillions)

Its like every two levels gets an extra zero, starting with 1 at 1.
Hmmm makes me think of monetary resources in 4e ;) every 5 levels is 5x as much as the previous...
so a tier is 25 x
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
So..."You can totally play 5e just like 1e if you ignore all the rules in how 1e was played." Gotcha.

Tony, I played 1e from 1981 to 2012 when the 5e playtest came out. I'm pretty well versed in how 1e plays, and how it feels. What you're arguing is extremely dismissive of very important factors.
I thought players taking turns so that things felt all stop and go, was the dramatic change between 1e and 3e and and it has taken a lot to digest the lack of simultaneous feel in the newer editions. 4e had a lot of out of turn actions that brought some but not all of that back for me I think 5e has moved strongly to restrict that.

I do get how the feel is not there.
 

Yaarel

Explorer
The number of persons whose life one impacts increases each level ...

1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000, 3000, 10 000, 30 000, 100 000, 300 000, and 1 million at level 13.

This is decent ballpark figure for a DM to keep in mind when think about the ‘scale’ of a campaign.
With planet Earth today having a population more than 3 billion but less than 10 billion, I think it is fair to say, Earth is a level 20 campaign setting.

At level 21, the D&D character would be solidly impacting every human on this planet, for good or less good − and even then expanding beyond into the populations of other planets.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The number of persons whose life one impacts increases each level ...

1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000, 3000, 10 000, 30 000, 100 000, 300 000, and 1 million at level 13.

This is decent ballpark figure for a DM to keep in mind when think about the ‘scale’ of a campaign.
I sometimes think about it in terms of scale in a different way Cinematic Visual scale... basically in terms of knockback or area of effect, it's also a bit arbitrary but its where awesomeness is felt in battle an Epic Melee attack needs to feel like it blows back enemies like Sauron in a recent LoTR movie. A hero in epic needs to be able to split mountains just as a ritual can drill through barriers.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
With planet Earth today having a population more than 3 billion but less than 10 billion, I think it is fair to say, Earth is a level 20 campaign setting.

At level 21, the D&D character would be solidly impacting every human on this planet, for good or less good − and even then expanding beyond into the populations of other planets.
I guess i am thinking effect scale which is battle board restricted to this 100 foot x 100 foot area, which just doesn't feel epic.

Not scope of who your over all adventure impacts.
 
Last edited:

EzekielRaiden

Explorer
Ok, OK, you built enough tension / anticipation - what was your hypothesis!?
Sorry, was very busy with games! (Just finished running another session tonight actually.) My hypothesis is that people for whom 4e is foreign to them have their back up most of the time. They're so worried about "messing up" that they can't feel comfortable doing all the things they feel completely comfortable doing in older D&D versions they're more familiar with. Even though the system is entirely robust and difficult to "break," I can't tell you how many people have point-blank told me they're "afraid" of breaking the "delicate" balance.

It sounds like you had played enough to become familiar with the system--if you played for most of 4e's run, anyway--so the hypothesis is at least partially contradicted.
 

Advertisement

Top