Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Who's still playing 4E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7005309" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I think 4e is a necessary developmental step between 3E and 5e. Probably the most striking differences between the two games are that (i) 5e has a two-rest recovery economy, and (ii) spells in 5e use a fixed rather than a X/level damage expression. And (i) and (ii) are inter-related in that, together with the <em>6-8 encounters with 2 short rests per day</em> guideline, characters should be roughly comparable in their contribution regardless of class.</p><p></p><p>These are all direct legacies of 4e, although (unlike 5e and 13th Age) 4e doesn't need an X encounters per day guideline prior to Essentials, because everyone's on the same schedule.</p><p></p><p>4e also trialled bounded accuracy, aiming for a more-or-less steady 65% hit rate for players. 5e largely keeps this, though it reduces the hit rate for monsters to something less than 4e, though still more than AD&D.</p><p></p><p>I wouldn't quite say that 5e is Essentials with the serial number filed off and a new coat of paint - but I think it's closer to that than is sometimes recognised.</p><p></p><p>Skill challenges are new in the technical sense - a players-make-all-the-action-declarations closed scene resolution mechanic. (HeroWars/Quest, for instance, which has a very mechanic of this sort, relies to a significant extent on opposed checks.)</p><p></p><p>Whether this is a <em>good</em> innovation is a trickier thing: with no action declarations from the GM, it can be easy for the resolution to degenerate into the notorious "dice rolling exercise"; but with no need for the GM to correlate the events on his/her side to actual action declarations or die rolls, and with the DC setting mostly handled by the chart, it does free the GM up to go nuts with the genre appropriate fiction.</p><p></p><p>I also think that solo monsters are an innovation. The BW rulebooks often have a "further reading" section that includes other RPGs. In the BW Adventure Burner (which is a bit like a GM's guide), the further reading includes 4e. I don't think it's a coincidence that this book also has advice on how to handle action economy issues between several PCs and a single "big bad" type. 4e tackles this perennial issue in reconciling RPG mechanics (especially combat mechanics) with dramatic conventions head on.</p><p></p><p>(And 5e's Legendary Actions clearly owe a big debt to this 4e work, although they are even <em>more</em> "dissociated"!)</p><p></p><p>A final 4e innovation, in my view, is reconciling non-sim Gygax-style AC-and-hp combat resolution with high-resolution, almost "gritty" tactical combat action (positioning, 6-second rounds, etc). 3E had elements of each, but (at least in my view) suffered from having too much "grit" in its hp (implausible flirting with simulationism, or "pseudo-simulation as veneer" eg +30 natural armour bonuses); and suffered from not actually putting the tactical detail to work (eg forced movement too hard to achieve; full action issues; etc).</p><p></p><p>4e is able to deliver a tactical overhead and intricacy comparable to (say) Rolemaster, but within a completely different, Gygaxian "heroic fantasy" paradigm. That's an innovation.</p><p></p><p>Overall, I would sum these up as borrowing from, and adapting, "indie-"style/Euro-style design, and showing that you can use it to build a fantasy RPG that will be a playable, D&D-style game. And that will deliver heroic fantasy without needing to go as abstract and free-descriptor as (say) HeroQuest revised, but without needing to punt everything to GM fiat.</p><p></p><p>I think it's a real achievement, and something new in RPGing, even if - as it turned out - not to everyone's taste.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7005309, member: 42582"] I think 4e is a necessary developmental step between 3E and 5e. Probably the most striking differences between the two games are that (i) 5e has a two-rest recovery economy, and (ii) spells in 5e use a fixed rather than a X/level damage expression. And (i) and (ii) are inter-related in that, together with the [I]6-8 encounters with 2 short rests per day[/I] guideline, characters should be roughly comparable in their contribution regardless of class. These are all direct legacies of 4e, although (unlike 5e and 13th Age) 4e doesn't need an X encounters per day guideline prior to Essentials, because everyone's on the same schedule. 4e also trialled bounded accuracy, aiming for a more-or-less steady 65% hit rate for players. 5e largely keeps this, though it reduces the hit rate for monsters to something less than 4e, though still more than AD&D. I wouldn't quite say that 5e is Essentials with the serial number filed off and a new coat of paint - but I think it's closer to that than is sometimes recognised. Skill challenges are new in the technical sense - a players-make-all-the-action-declarations closed scene resolution mechanic. (HeroWars/Quest, for instance, which has a very mechanic of this sort, relies to a significant extent on opposed checks.) Whether this is a [I]good[/I] innovation is a trickier thing: with no action declarations from the GM, it can be easy for the resolution to degenerate into the notorious "dice rolling exercise"; but with no need for the GM to correlate the events on his/her side to actual action declarations or die rolls, and with the DC setting mostly handled by the chart, it does free the GM up to go nuts with the genre appropriate fiction. I also think that solo monsters are an innovation. The BW rulebooks often have a "further reading" section that includes other RPGs. In the BW Adventure Burner (which is a bit like a GM's guide), the further reading includes 4e. I don't think it's a coincidence that this book also has advice on how to handle action economy issues between several PCs and a single "big bad" type. 4e tackles this perennial issue in reconciling RPG mechanics (especially combat mechanics) with dramatic conventions head on. (And 5e's Legendary Actions clearly owe a big debt to this 4e work, although they are even [I]more[/I] "dissociated"!) A final 4e innovation, in my view, is reconciling non-sim Gygax-style AC-and-hp combat resolution with high-resolution, almost "gritty" tactical combat action (positioning, 6-second rounds, etc). 3E had elements of each, but (at least in my view) suffered from having too much "grit" in its hp (implausible flirting with simulationism, or "pseudo-simulation as veneer" eg +30 natural armour bonuses); and suffered from not actually putting the tactical detail to work (eg forced movement too hard to achieve; full action issues; etc). 4e is able to deliver a tactical overhead and intricacy comparable to (say) Rolemaster, but within a completely different, Gygaxian "heroic fantasy" paradigm. That's an innovation. Overall, I would sum these up as borrowing from, and adapting, "indie-"style/Euro-style design, and showing that you can use it to build a fantasy RPG that will be a playable, D&D-style game. And that will deliver heroic fantasy without needing to go as abstract and free-descriptor as (say) HeroQuest revised, but without needing to punt everything to GM fiat. I think it's a real achievement, and something new in RPGing, even if - as it turned out - not to everyone's taste. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Who's still playing 4E
Top