Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[Tony Vargas]

After taking vitals, I'd say it feelz like it's CTD.

All those late hits add up?

Well, obviously WotC could suddenly decide to release virtually anything, but I don't see this as 'early days' of 5e! This is 3 years since the official release of the game, is it not? I mean, 2.5 years. This is the point in 4e where it was 2011, the PHB3 had been released IIRC, most of the * Power series of books was out, and essentially the game was feature complete.

IDK about 'feature complete.' There could have been a PH4 covering Epic better, for instance. But, by early 2011, 4e had added back in everything even arguably present in a past-ed PH1. The gnome, the most publicized omission, along with the Druid, Bard, Barbarian, (& Assassin in Dragon 379, & Illusionist as Orb of Deception build in Arcane Power) in 2009, and the Monk & Psion in 2010. By early 2011 (which, yes, corresponds to where we are now), Essentials had added back daily-less martial classes, including the DPR-only fighter (the Slayer), and magic-using rangers (scout & hunter). So even by fairly uncharitable standards, every class (and sub-class) that past editions had offered in the PH1 (and some from the 3.5 PH2 in some incarnation - Knight & Scout at least) were covered by 4e.

5e still lacks the Warlord from the 4e PH1, and has the 1e PH1 psionics (not technically a class) only in playtest form. So, yeah, it's a little behind in terms of basic completeness.

It's also going on a much slower pace of release.

Around this time WotC must have begun working on Essentials, since it was released in 2012.

Heroes of the Fallen Land dropped in Sept 2010. I consider that the end of 4e - at least it signaled a reversal of direction, as everything since has been heroically forging into the past.

hope you can see why I disagree with the idea that 4e is "DnD:tactics".

The implication is that D&D can only do tactics, the way a 5e fighter can only deliver DPR. Except, of course, that it's entirely false in the case of 4e, since 4e had more and (eventually) more functional mechanisms to handle out-of-combat challenges than any other edition, whereas the critique of the 5e fighter as at worst a tad hyperbolic (the 5e fighter /can/ do other things: it can make warm-body skill checks, it can absorb a little more damage than other non-Barbarian classes, it can use stuff from it's Background, &c)

What i I don't understand is how people who don't like detailed mechanical representation enjoyed 3.5? Seems like the main difference between it and 4e is simply that 4e rejects the ivory tower design concept, and is less asymmetrical, etc, not that 3.5 is any less designed around mechanical representation of thematic elements.

3.5 was /more mechanically detailed/, it had more skills with finer granularity, more extensive & granular tactical-combat rules, more conditions, more named bonus types, etc, etc. It was a very more edition and had 5+ years of break-kneck-publication behind it, not to mention legions of 3pp products.

So, yeah, not like 'detailed mechanical whatever,' but prefering 3.5 to 4e on that basis is nonsense. The Edition War led to a lot of nonsense, at that was just one of many mines in the field.

However, there is a very compelling reason for not wanting to adopt 4e's detailed mechanics, in spite of already having fully embraced 3.5's with great enthusiasm: sunk cost. Learning 3.5 and keeping up with it for years was no mean accomplishment, and the rewards of doing so in terms of the advantage you gained from system mastery were positively lavish. Loosing that 'investment,' and having to re-learn a different system (that was more designed to be learned easily by new players, than to be familiar to existing ones), for lesser pay-offs (because 4e was better-balanced, while you could certainly optimize, the result wouldn't be as wildly overpowered), was an understandable dis-incentive. Just a practical and calculated one, not so much to do with 'da feelz.'

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, ok. So, I'd definately say that tactics is an entirely separate concern from mechanical representation of thematic elements.

With that understanding of wht I mean by tactical, I think we can agree that we want different things from game systems, and I hope you can see why I disagree with the idea that 4e is "DnD:tactics".

What i I don't understand is how people who don't like detailed mechanical representation enjoyed 3.5? Seems like the main difference between it and 4e is simply that 4e rejects the ivory tower design concept, and is less asymmetrical, etc, not that 3.5 is any less designed around mechanical representation of thematic elements.

Right, its not tactical complexity that makes 4e interesting. Its mechanical representation of character thematics that WORKS. You don't want to get in the grill of my 4e weapon master fighter because once you do you're stuck there and subject to his whim, and that's mechanically modeled by the game, its not some kind of hoped-for DM-generated result, nor dependent on the DM to agree to imagine the bad guy being stuck in front of you (which admittedly is a detail you can both PROBABLY agree on, but its not certain).

One of the things this leads to is real focus on specific thematics. If I want to be a 'fire mage' in 4e I can do it in spades! I can be a Tiefling spouting brimstone, resisting fire, casting fire magic every round, using fires for ritual magic, flavoring every little thing I do as 'fire' something. It works.

Now, in one sense I do like 5e's approach though. It tends to package stuff in fewer options, so to be a fire mage in 5e, maybe its not so well detailed mechanically, but you don't have to wade through as many choices to get to its version of that. I think this is a way in which 4e didn't succeed. A lot of people appreciate the fine-grained build options, but a LOT also would probably do better with coarser options.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Don't get me started on the 5e fighter. I'd literally prefer to get rid of it and make a couple new classes in it's place. Many of the subclasses are fun, but the base class is, IMO, the single most boring thing in the last three editions. 4e expertise feats were more interesting to me than the 5e fighter is.

Ok, not the bland 1st round ones, I'll grant that.

But the second round ones hat had a side benefit on top of fixing your math for you? Reasonably interesting mechanical quirks with reasonably fun thematic implications. Which is Miles and miles more interesting than anything in the base fighter, IMO.

I like 5e, but there are parts of it I'd rather never see at my table.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

3.5 was /more mechanically detailed/, it had more skills with finer granularity, more extensive & granular tactical-combat rules, more conditions, more named bonus types, etc, etc. It was a very more edition and had 5+ years of break-kneck-publication behind it, not to mention legions of 3pp products.

So, yeah, not like 'detailed mechanical whatever,' but prefering 3.5 to 4e on that basis is nonsense. The Edition War led to a lot of nonsense, at that was just one of many mines in the field.

However, there is a very compelling reason for not wanting to adopt 4e's detailed mechanics, in spite of already having fully embraced 3.5's with great enthusiasm: sunk cost. Learning 3.5 and keeping up with it for years was no mean accomplishment, and the rewards of doing so in terms of the advantage you gained from system mastery were positively lavish. Loosing that 'investment,' and having to re-learn a different system (that was more designed to be learned easily by new players, than to be familiar to existing ones), for lesser pay-offs (because 4e was better-balanced, while you could certainly optimize, the result wouldn't be as wildly overpowered), was an understandable dis-incentive. Just a practical and calculated one, not so much to do with 'da feelz.'

Well, even if you weren't really interested in playing the build game of 3.5 there's plenty of people who just see it as all they need. That's the case with the group that I ran one 4e campaign for and played in 5e with. After I left they all went back to 3.5 because they all played 3.x for the last 15 years, and its at least roughly similar to the 2e they played before that in terms of the spell lists and such.

They just don't care about the issues. They've worked out what you are and aren't allowed to do and to them that's fine. Its simply less effort to play what they know, and it apparently delivers a result that is acceptable for them. If I went and got them into a 4e game, they'd play, they played it for almost 3 years, but they aren't motivated to spend money or effort on anything beyond what they bought 10 years ago.

 

[Parmandur]

Don't get me started on the 5e fighter. I'd literally prefer to get rid of it and make a couple new classes in it's place. Many of the subclasses are fun, but the base class is, IMO, the single most boring thing in the last three editions. 4e expertise feats were more interesting to me than the 5e fighter is.

Ok, not the bland 1st round ones, I'll grant that.

But the second round ones hat had a side benefit on top of fixing your math for you? Reasonably interesting mechanical quirks with reasonably fun thematic implications. Which is Miles and miles more interesting than anything in the base fighter, IMO.

I like 5e, but there are parts of it I'd rather never see at my table.

Playing a Champion in 5E is hugely fun, in my experience. I had a blast.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Garthanos]

4e expertise feats were more interesting to me than the 5e fighter is.

Ouch I am going to mourn some of the things cast aside in that play test right now....

 

[Tony Vargas]

Don't get me started on the 5e fighter. I'd literally prefer to get rid of it and make a couple new classes in it's place. Many of the subclasses are fun, but the base class is, IMO, the single most boring thing in the last three editions.

There's no need to purge it (there are folks who like having a more or less choiceless build choice - no irony intended - though I think pregens are the better solution for such players, if only because they might not all always want to play the exact same thing).

4e expertise feats were more interesting to me than the 5e fighter is.

You go too far, sir! ;P

I like 5e, but there are parts of it I'd rather never see at my table.

As long as you're the DM, you can make that happen.


But, you do have a point (OK, I have a point, and I'm using you to make it, sorry 'bout that): If a 5e player doesn't want a complicated-to-build character, and doesn't want it to be complicated in play, the Champion is about his only option. If a player /does/ want a more option-rich build choice or a more interesting-in-play option, the Fighter (and Barbarian, and even Rogue to an only slightly lesser extent) is off the table. Similarly, if a player wants a character with some sort of magical power, he has to grok the neo-vancian slot system, and hunt through a hundred odd spells deciding what he needs access to.

On the one hand, that's been a feature in the past. Everyone knew to point the newb at the fighter for his first class (when they weren't hazing him by making him play the band-aid Cleric, that is), and casters were the 'advanced classes' part of the perks of developing 'skilled play' on your way to becoming a DM.
Starting in 3e, though, it wasn't quite so clear. The 3e fighter was hard to build well, and didn't work quite like any other class - the Barbarian was a better training-wheels class for new players. Similarly, though 4e was easier to just pick up & play with no prior knowledge of the game, the 4e fighter was a defender, which required a little more thought in play than a striker to use effectively, and while you could play a fighter more or less as a striker, it took a teeny bit of system mastery to set it up - an Archer Ranger was the easiest PC to build/play. Essentials re-set the teething class to Fighter(Slayer) and 5e kept that in the form of the Champion.

In the meantime, though Essentials had also introduced some less traditional, comparatively easy classes - the Thief was a very easy-to-use striker, though it had a little more to do than the Striker, and, most dramatically, the Elemental Sorcerer was a straightforward/streamlined, simple to build/play (to the point of deadly-dull) blasting Striker that was actually tossing around magic. So in post-E, you could actually give even the most complexity-adverse player an easy choice of 3 general types of characters - the melee badass, the stealthy killer, and the blazing caster. For everything Essentials did 'wrong,' that was a bright spot.

5e could do with some more interesting non-magic-using classes, and at least one simplistic supernatural-powers/casting class, for those who'd like to dive in with such a concept.

 

[pemerton]

reach tends to be low value in 4e, especially for a Fighter

That's not the experience at our table.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not the experience at our table.

I think MwaO simply may not be a fan of pole-arm builds The classic Pole-arm Momentum 'sticky as glue' build certainly makes reach DAMNED useful! Its also one that illustrates a good need for secondary abilities, as it has several ability score pre-reqs to meet, so it is certainly NOT a build you would dump a 20 STR onto.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As reach tends to be low value in 4e, especially for a Fighter, that's not a great outcome.

Certainly compared to 3.x reach (ie 4e threatening reach, which is damn near unavailable to PCs)

I think MwaO simply may not be a fan of pole-arm builds The classic Pole-arm Momentum 'sticky as glue' build certainly makes reach DAMNED useful! Its also one that illustrates a good need for secondary abilities, as it has several ability score pre-reqs to meet, so it is certainly NOT a build you would dump a 20 STR onto.

I don't know if it's the same reason I'm not happy with 'em...

pet peeve alert: because if fighters had threatening reach in 4e, they'd've pulped lot of controller toes, a rare/obnoxious case of gratuitous niche protection in that edition, IMHO.