D&D 5E spells in 5.0

[SigmaOne]

What does it actually do?

Sentinel Feat

• When you hit a creature with AoO, it's movement is reduced to 0. "You're goin' nowhere!"
• Creatures within 5' of you provoke AoO even when they use the disengage action.
• When a creature within 5' of you attacks a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat) you can use your reaction to make a melee attack on that creature.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sentinel Feat

• When you hit a creature with AoO, it's movement is reduced to 0. "You're goin' nowhere!"
• Creatures within 5' of you provoke AoO even when they use the disengage action.
• When a creature within 5' of you attacks a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat) you can use your reaction to make a melee attack on that creature.

Wow, that'd be very 4E if you could ever get more than one Reaction/turn!

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I've been thinking of 5e as 2e 2e.

I don't see much of 4e in the rules. Maybe some concepts like non-clerical healing and at-will casting, but not much mechanical (AEDU structure, NADs, skill challenges, action points, [W] damage). Though some of the rules (such as combat and stealth) do follow 4e's more streamlined approach.

As for spells, yeah there are a ton in the PH. Far too many, IMO. Of course they do need a ton because so many PH classes get them (once again, far too many, IMO). The vast majority of these spells go back to 1e. I can't think of a single spell from 3e that was a good addition.

Still, you're right that they did a good job tamping down on the power level of casters. Not great, mind you, but good.

 

[the Jester]

Argh not this ridiculous chesnut again! Actually, they function in a way that is diametrically opposed to Healing Surges. HSes were the limited and controlled core of all healing in 4E. HD are free minor bonus healing.

We see this differently. You are correct in that HS in 4e were the limited core of healing, but basically, 4e allowed tons more new healing effects that relied on surges, which made them the core, while keeping many of the old surgeless healing effects as more rare, daily abilities like cure light wounds. 5e simply shifts the emphasis back to spells and effects that don't use HD while continuing to use HD for bonus healing during a rest.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see options for both "most all healing uses HD" and "no spending HD to heal" in the DMG; that easily allows for both 1e through 3e style play and 4e style play.

5 mins = 1hr is a pretty bonkers change. It's kind of like if Wizards needed a week to regain their spells or something.

So yeah, the concept of rests beyond the daily, sure (though I think late 3.5E started that), but the implementation is strongly at-odds with 4E's "keep the game flowing" deal, instead becoming "Get the picnic basket and nap mats out!".

Again, if someone wants to, they can easily adjust the dials on this by making a short rest 5 minutes- or, for that matter, by making the long rest take that week you mention!

I never saw short rests in 3.5, but I didn't pick up the Book of 9 Swords or whatever it was called, which had a bunch of new mechanics in it as I understand it. Like Dungeonscape, I think it had a lot of trial stuff for 4e floated in it.

Not a 3E thing, I agree, but hardly limited to 4E - 2E's kits were VERY similar to 5E's sub-classes in many cases. So 2E and 4E influence.

I'd put kits as closer to backgrounds, but I agree that there's a lot of crossover there (e.g. assassin rogues). But I never used kits until Skills & Powers introduced non-class-specific ones, which was one of the only elements of the S&P book that I allowed in my game.

Yep, but again we have stuff starkly at odds with 4E implementations, even ignoring scaling bonuses etc. etc.

I think the similarities are more striking than the differences, and vastly prefer the rebuilt bounded accuracy technique. 4e had a sort of "bounded at a given level" accuracy going on, which was just a tighter form of controlled bonus inflation.

Was in 3.5E, plus sorta repeating yourself.

Fair enough- I'm thinking of things like a wizard's arcane recovery, which emulates encounter powers in a tweaked way, for instance.

What does it actually do?

It basically lets you use the 4e PH fighter's "you're not going anywhere!" stickiness abilities.

Indeed. Far more 4E abilities left in the dust, though, many with no apparent design space to return.

That's fine with me. It certainly wasn't my perfect game. I'm glad they are keeping the good stuff and tossing the bad stuff, and it looks to me like they are doing that with EVERY edition!

For instance- from BECMI, they are keeping elegant simplicity for magic items and spells, an emphasis on imaginative play, domain rulership (in the DMG), etc. while tossing out a lot of the clunkiness and weird, nonsensible rules and stuff. From 1e, they are keeping a lot of flavor, the classic races and classes, the notion of wizards as glass cannons and fighters as tanks, etc. They are tossing weird mechanics and unnecessary complexity like weapon vs AC type modifiers, descending AC, etc. From 2e, they are keeping specialty priests, expanded lore for the campaign worlds, etc. while tossing all the catering to the anti-D&D crowd. From 3e, they are keeping a unified core mechanic, unified xp charts, multiclassing system, etc. while tossing massively escalating bonuses, the magic item Christmas tree effect, etc.

I really think 5e will hit the right notes for me and will enable easy emulation of any D&D edition. I'm sure there are plenty of folks who will still prefer each earlier version of D&D, but it looks to solve my issues with both 3e and 4e while giving me what they lost that I loved in earlier versions of the game.

For the record, right now I'm running a 1e game, finishing up my epic 4e game and running the 5e Starter Set. I love them all, and each gives me a bit of a different feeling, and I don't have a sure favorite between them. But once I start my 'real' 5e campaign, once I've got the core books in hand, I feel like it's going to scratch all those different D&D itches at once for me.

 

[doctorhook]

4e influences 5e in a TON of ways, and 4e detractors seem to overlook them. Just to start- Hit Dice are obviously an evolution of healing surges; the short and long rest; subclasses as major elements of a pc's build; monsters; the ability to recharge certain abilities after a short rest or under certain conditions; the Sentinel feat; quite a few 4e spells, such as Thunderwave, and abilities reflavored as spells, such as Hunter's Mark; etc. And that's all off the top of my head, without even having the PH yet and without the MM or DMG even out.

I think both some detractors, and some proponents overlook them. Which is too bad, because saying 5e is basically just Xe with tweaks (with 1<X<5) is ignoring a lot of what they've done.

I totally agree with both of you. It's unfortunate how much 4E-hate is still floating around, to the extent that some folks refuse to acknowledge that bits of something they dislike (4E) might have been passed along into something they like (5E).

The honest truth is that 4E was pretty revolutionary, and that 5E is just the pendulum swinging back the other way, especially in terms of flavour and format; 5E mechanics are a clear evolution of 4E's (and 3E's, and 2E's, and 1E's, etc.).

 

[doctorhook]

Argh not this ridiculous chesnut again! Actually, they function in a way that is diametrically opposed to Healing Surges. HSes were the limited and controlled core of all healing in 4E. HD are free minor bonus healing.

But they exist, where no similar mechanic existed in 3E.

5 mins = 1hr is a pretty bonkers change. It's kind of like if Wizards needed a week to regain their spells or something.

That's hyperbole; both durations are short rests, and the wizard still gets his spells back every day. Yes, there's debate about how long a short rest ought to be, but they still function the same way. Note that short rests didn't formally exist before 4E.

So yeah, the concept of rests beyond the daily, sure (though I think late 3.5E started that), but the implementation is strongly at-odds with 4E's "keep the game flowing" deal, instead becoming "Get the picnic basket and nap mats out!".

This is a game-style- and pacing-change rather than a mechanical one.

Yep, but again we have stuff starkly at odds with 4E implementations, even ignoring scaling bonuses etc. etc.

We don't have the monster math yet, but we do know that 5E's math is a little different. So what? 5E's numbers may not scale the same way 4E's do, but the way that they do scale indicates a much tighter, tier-based spread à la 4E-math rather than 3E's linear progression.

At any rate, if you take a look at any monster stat block in 5E, the carryover from 4E is obvious. Even the attacks are laid out like 4E attack powers!

[The ability to recharge certain abilities after a short rest or under certain conditions was] in 3.5E...

Fun fact: most of these abilities appeared in 3.5E only after development of 4E had begun, and were described by the designers as conscious attempts to retro-port new mechanics from 4E into 3.5E. (ToB:Bo9S, I'm looking at you.)

Indeed. Far more 4E abilities left in the dust, though, many with no apparent design space to return.

I disagree insofar as I still see a ton of 4E's legacy in 5E mechanics. Furthermore, I see at least as many pre-4E mechanics and abilities left in the dust with no room to return, most of which were still more fundamental to the game structure than were the specific implementations of any powers in 4E: iterative attacks, attack-type-based saving throws, redundant prestige classes, percentile ability modifiers, etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The vast majority of these spells go back to 1e. I can't think of a single spell from 3e that was a good addition.

Revivify? Bear's Endurance/Cat's Grace, maybe?

Argh not this ridiculous chesnut again! Actually, they function in a way that is diametrically opposed to Healing Surges. HSes were the limited and controlled core of all healing in 4E. HD are free minor bonus healing.

HD may freak out 4e detractors almost as much as healing surges did, but, yeah, they're nothing like healing surges where it counts. They're a much smaller per-character healing resource, that's /much/ harder to trigger, and is in addition to, instead of a limiting factor on, other sorts of healing. For a game that's trying to be modular, a devolution of healing surges, not an evolution. If they were more like surges, HD would make a perfect 'touch point' for modules changing he nature of healing in the game or pacing of a campaign. But, no, healing stays tied to spells/day in 5e - very 3e-and-earlier.

So yeah, the concept of rests beyond the daily, sure (though I think late 3.5E started that),

Short rests and full healing between combats were a 3e thing, just a possibly-unintended one, a consequence of cheap potions and WoCLW.

Not a 3E thing, I agree, but hardly limited to 4E - 2E's kits were VERY similar to 5E's sub-classes in many cases. So 2E and 4E influence.

5e sub-classes are very clearly an Essentials thing, yes, but they, in turn drew from AD&D sub-classes, and, to a lesser extent 4e Builds (since sub-classes could have builds, too). Builds were a 4e formalization of a very real 3.x phenomenon. The idea that you have, for each class, a few viable/optimal builds is /very/ 3e.

Indeed. Far more 4E abilities left in the dust, though, many with no apparent design space to return.

While you can find a lot of stuff from 4e in 5e, it's mostly stuff that was also in 3e in some form (really, 'd20 stuff'), if not something 4e brought back from AD&D after 3e misplaced it.

But, ultimately, if you look at the design philosophy of 5e, it's nothing like 4e, and not much like 3e, either. 3e had conscious rewards for system mastery and a lot of options and detail meant to empower players to build just the character they wanted - all rolled over to monsters so the DM could use the same plethora of tools, but not really /meant/ for that function. 4e was better balanced than D&D had ever tried to be, and was built that way from the ground-up. 5e is neither of those things. It doesn't build classes with an eye to balance, nor to giving players a lot of mix-match build options. 5e is designed very much for the DM to 'make his own.' The rules are full of DM-decided options, the player doesn't know what he can use to build his character, nor what his build choices will ultimately mean in play. The DM decides what options are available, and interprets (or fixes) the rules in play. This philosophy - a problematic, DM-enforced, balance-of-imbalances for the classes; vague rules requiring DM adjudication to establish basic playability; different house rules at every table - is very much like that of AD&D, where EGG advised DMs /not to let players learn the rules/.

The implementation may look & feel a lot like 3e or 2e, and their may be fragments of every edition mixed together, but in it's overall philosophy, 5e is aimed at emulating old-school AD&D.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Fifth Edition took a lot of inspiration from every edition. But the various ideas weren't just kludged together. This edition has its own framework, and those borrowed concepts were used to inspire new mechanics inside the new framework.

While, on the surface, it most resembles Third Edition, that's because it uses the d20 mechanic and favors class features + spells over powers to define classes. In most other respects, it has its own identity.

The strong focus that all rolls are ability rolls, plus the unified proficiency bonus make this edition more of its own beast than a copy of any other edition. There's similarity to the half-level bonus in Fourth, and the saves for each ability score from First and Second Editions, but the way it's assembled is truly the defining element of this edition.

 

[Kinak]

It's far more like 2.99 than 3.99, imo, frankly. Before 3E came out, WotC had an article listing "10 ways you can play 3E now!", which were tweaks (big ones) to 2E. Using all of those gave a game closer to 5E than how 3E actually turned out.

I was curious, so I dug it up. If anyone else is curious, it's archived here.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Gundark]

Wow, that'd be very 4E if you could ever get more than one Reaction/turn!

Yeah one of the guys I played with was reading over his 5e phb and complained that "There is no way to tank in 5e!". Honestly 4e with all the snares and stops was irritating for a DM. I think tanking has been placed with in realistic limits