D&D 5E Sell 5th edition to a 4th edition fan...

[parhadokzal]

Just a quick heads-up:
1- Thanks to almost everyone for keeping it civil about the edition war. I tried to make it clear from the start, but, oh well...
2- I'm keeping 13th Age in my box of possibilities, that's quite interesting. Don't know where my group would stand on this one though.
3- I understand what some people say about 5th being similar to 4e. I just don't get it while reading. I've gone through the whole PHB and have not found it to my liking. Maybe a couple of test sessions would help us see it, in fact.
4- Some people state that WotC will continue supporting DDI. I'm quite surprised by that. Maybe I'm just cynic but I don't usually see big companies continue supporting an obsolete product while trying to market its new one...

Thanks everyone. I'm not quite the forum writer, but I always lurk and follow the discussion!

 

[mlund]

Classes are not the same as ‘Roles’ - we know this by virtue of the fact that 5E still has Classes (lots of them) but no formalised ‘Roles’ in the 4E sense.

Meaningless appeals to inconsistent semantics aren't going to get you anywhere. "Jobs," in highly performing parties existed from the outset of D&D. Class diversity (internal via builds and external via splat-book churn) came later.

- Marty Lund

 

[billd91]

’Roles’ as stated and used in 4E were introduced in that edition and had no precedent in any previous edition. To state otherwise is untrue.

I'm no fan of 4e, but this isn't entirely true. The difference was the roles weren't formal and rigidly designed. There was little difference between a defender and a striker, for example, because a fighter could have both a high AC, be difficult to get around, and do high spikes of damage. Spellcasters could exhibit behaviors suggesting striker, leader, or controller depending on the spells they selected on any particular day. Nevertheless, pre-4e PCs could fit into the roles as 4e described their function within the party. Relying on a narrow definition such as "roles as stated and used in 4e" seems like begging the question to me. Of course there was no precedent for roles "as used in 4e" before 4e. But that's ultimately a useless statement. The questions are - did roles exist and did the definition and implementation of roles in 4e fit them? The answers are yes and sort of, respectively.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

’Roles’ as stated and used in 4E were introduced in that edition and had no precedent in any previous edition. To state otherwise is untrue.

If there's one thing I love its some random guy telling me my own experiences were untrue. So tell me, great psychic, why are your memories of how me and my buddies thought about class roles more valid than mine?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Meaningless appeals to inconsistent semantics isn't going to get you anywhere. "Jobs," in highly performing parties existed from the outset of D&D. Class diversity (internal via builds and external via splat-book churn) came later.

- Marty Lund

I’m not making any “appeals to inconsistent semantics”. I’m saying you are making it all up in your own head! 4E ‘roles’ were introduced in 4E.

Anyway, could you please stop responding to me - I want to retire from this thread! The idea of perpetuating old 4E arguments is not my idea of fun in a 5E forum. You stop arguing with me and I’ll go away - and people can carry on with their 4E/5E discussions without me.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

4- Some people state that WotC will continue supporting DDI. I'm quite surprised by that. Maybe I'm just cynic but I don't usually see big companies continue supporting an obsolete product while trying to market its new one...

Thanks everyone. I'm not quite the forum writer, but I always lurk and follow the discussion!

You are welcome! And, in play, you may be surprised by 5E. And if you hate it, then you can honestly say that you gave it a shot and continue playing an edition you love.

The issue with WotC continuing support seems to be part of their new strategy since 4E fell; they appear to be supporting all editions at the same time. It strikes me as being an honest effort from their part to change how they deal with editions.

 

[fjw70]

Just a quick heads-up:
1- Thanks to almost everyone for keeping it civil about the edition war. I tried to make it clear from the start, but, oh well...
2- I'm keeping 13th Age in my box of possibilities, that's quite interesting. Don't know where my group would stand on this one though.
3- I understand what some people say about 5th being similar to 4e. I just don't get it while reading. I've gone through the whole PHB and have not found it to my liking. Maybe a couple of test sessions would help us see it, in fact.
4- Some people state that WotC will continue supporting DDI. I'm quite surprised by that. Maybe I'm just cynic but I don't usually see big companies continue supporting an obsolete product while trying to market its new one...

Thanks everyone. I'm not quite the forum writer, but I always lurk and follow the discussion!

I have given some though on making 5e more like 4e. For starters you can use the 4e grid rules in 5e just fine. Turn a 15' cone into a blast 3 and things like that.

I have also brought 4e healing surges in as well to replace hit dice healing. Four 4e surges are roughly equal to 5e hit dice. If you want more non-magical healing then double the surges (and ban the healing spell's if you want mostly non-magical healing).

Bring over 4e 5 minute short rest to help with the 4e feel. The Battlemaster fighter really benefits from this.

Add a warlord fighting style that allows you to activate healing surges on your allies.

I was hoping the 5e DMG would have more stuff like this but maybe the UA articles will explore these hacks.

 

[Remathilis]

Back in OD&D we had roles. They were called "classes" and there were 4 of them. I can almost remember their names ... I think they went something like this: "Sword-guy," "Heal-bot," "Spell-guy," and "Oxygen-Thief."

However, your pithy "roles" are just restatements of mine above; someone to fight, someone to heal, someone to cast, someone to explore. And you could use other classes to "more or less" fill those roles. They are very much unlike 4e's roles, which were more akin to positions on a sports team (forwards, centers, defense-men, goalie) and far more PREscripitive than the earlier DEscripitive roles you and I have commented on.

For example, heal-bot got its name from the fact he was the only base class with cure spells. Healing was not his role though, as evidenced that he got far too few of them (and many far too late in levels, pre 3e) to really do that job well. Relying solely on a Cleric's healing in Basic or 1e is a recipe for disaster. Compare to 4e's leader role, which practically gave you dozen's of ways to recover hp because that's what a leader does; including a 2+/encounter "swift heal" which was mandatory for all leaders.

And leader is one of the easier ones. Describe a 1e magic-users role in one sentence (and don't try to be snarky or ironic). You can't. Their magic does everything from open doors to avoid hazards to fry large areas of monsters. What role does he fill? Effectively, all of them; one spell at a time. This is why Controller is such a mess; its trying make one role out of 8 schools of magic.

So while pre-4e had roles, they are very different in form and function. Some of them are similar (healer is close to leader, defender looks like warrior) but earlier ones describe how the class functions, while 4e told the class how to function. Cart before horse and all that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Part of what's going on is that in 4e, defenders were two things that 5e defenders don't try to be.

First, they were constructed. You had to pick your powers and your feats and your ability scores and your weapon-juggling-capabilities and they all needed to be in harmony to arrive at a given conclusion. Some people are going to miss that granularity. 5e goes for "big choices," so it doesn't have that granularity. In 5e, if you want to be the best in the game at protecting your allies in combat, you pick the Protection fighting style, and your job is basically done.

Second, they were binary, and by that I mean that they ultimately got to decide what the enemy was capable of doing for the enemy -- a creature could do X unless there was a fighter next to them. Thanks to roles being largely a matter of choice, not a matter of class, 5e isn't nearly so monolithic about it, and it doesn't need to be (the wizard can take a punch or two, or even off-tank if they need to -- they won't always need the defender to completely negate attacks). Some people are going to miss the ability to decide others' play the way that a 4e defender played by a system master could.

For me, there are huge bonuses in both that more that outweigh the drawbacks.

I can't granularity construct a defender, but it's a lot easier for my newbies to understand "I can make someone roll twice if they want to hit that friend next to me" than it is for them to understand "every time I make an attack I apply a condition called a mark that then in certain circumstances is a penalty and also serves sometimes as a trigger for a limited suite of abilities that I may or may not choose to use and the ultimate purpose is to protect your friends." It's simpler, faster, less fiddly, and more fun for me. That might not be true for everyone.

I also can't have a defender that limits enemy actions, but that increased dynamism lets combat flow faster, keeps the narrative moving forward, and allows the DM to threaten the weaker members of the party (at a cost that doesn't grind the game to a halt). This doesn't mean the defender is failing at their job, merely that a 5e character played in "protect my friends mode" doesn't need to completely shut down an enemy to do their job. Again, simpler, faster, more dynamic, more interesting, more up-and-down. Other folks might really cling to those shut-down abilities because that can be fun to apply as well.

Ultimately, it's a subjective call that's going to depend on your group's preferences (big, dynamic, simple vs. granular, controlled, and constructed). After nearly two decades of fiddly bits and stacking +1's, I am completely OK in making bigger, more dramatic decisions that are not necessarily binary. If that's not up your ally, 5e is not going to scratch your itch. If you think the details are really vital, you're going to want to stick with 4e.

Sort of an awkward comparison, but if 4e is like a game of chess or MtG, with carefully planned moves and the feeling of mastery when you win, 5e is more a game like MarioKart, where the effect of what you've got is clearly telegraphed and even the most skilled player spends some time in the back 'cuz of the chaos of the moment, but everyone has fun going through the track anyway.

 

[Uchawi]

I don't think the real question is whether I sell you the concept of 5E, or vice versa, but what is WOTC going to do to sell 5E to all of us. It has the same lackluster approach to adventures the 4E had. If 4E had some strong adventures I would still be playing it. If 5E had a strong line of adventures I might play it more.

I am not completely happy with either, but it appears Paizo is the only company that acknowledges you have to sell the rules, with more than just the rules.