Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9335399" data-attributes="member: 87792">I think the biggest two differences between 4e and 5e are:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How much of your character's abilities are inherent to you and how much are just equipment</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How what you do in combat varies from round to round, allowing you to emphasise what is important for your character.</li> </ul>I'll start with the second point first. In D&D 3.X or for most 5e builds (or if you are playing a Slayer in D&D 4e) if you are playing a fighter you basically walk towards the enemy and go "bop". 5e is not quite as terrible as 3.5 here because fighters all have Action Surge and Second Wind so they (like barbarians) get to declare fights as important enough to action surge/rage in and rogues can attack and hide in the same round. Meanwhile 4e characters are much more alive and get to do things like have reaction abilities, or to declare situations urgent enough to use daily powers. And most attacks are different rather than just walking forward and going "bop" or possibly "bop bop bop" to reduce hit points. (Even the Battlemaster generally goes "Bop plus rider"). And generally playing an untiring robot who always spams their best attack rather than paces themselves and mixes things up. The other thing is that in 4e if you are a caster your abilities are you. In 3.X or 5e if you are a cleric your spells (i.e. a significant part of what you do) is equipment, and you pick it every day based on metagame considerations (which may be based on in character knowledge). Two clerics are fundamentally interchangeable in terms of ability; the things they bring to the party beyond sub-par melee attacks (and in 5e a subclass) are their spells, which can be switched over on a long rest. So optimal play involves spending a long time in your spell list and a lot less time in the moment. And a core issue that was common in 4e was people seeing their powers as abilities (as spells are) and picking the "best" without thinking of the character they belonged to; if you design the character then everything focuses on it. Yes, 5e has honourable exceptions here in the charisma casters and the ranger. But those are exceptions, not the rule.And there are lots of places where 4e is just simply more character driven.  Take, for example, Lay on Hands. In 5e it's a pool of hit points that give you a "magic pool". In 4e it lets you spend your own endurance (Healing Surges) to help someone else recover.If you're approaching 4e with a narrative mindset then it just fits better than 5e does.</blockquote>

Verification