Player Help Transitioning from 4e to 5e (partially) - basic questions [Archive]

da_chicken

2014-06-08, 08:58 PM

Uhm, hello, anyone that tends to hang around in the 4e boards knows me already, but I wanted to check out 5e, so I guess I'll ask some questions.

Main differences between 4e and 5e?

It's wildly different. There are some concepts which remain (short rests, characters can heal themselves between battles without magic, 3 failed saves to die) but it's really not very similar at all.

If 3e was the first attempt at modernizing BECMI/1e/2e, 5e is the second attempt.

Where can I find the playtest packages?

Nowhere legally. The playtest was concluded 8-10 months ago.

As an optimizer (partially), any basic tips when moving between editions?

Forget everything you know.

Concepts in 4e that fully (or are very similar) in 5e?

Roll d20 and add a modifer as the basic mechanic is still there. Ability score modifiers are the same. Hit points. Everything after that is kind of bits and pieces.

Concepts in 4e that just don't exist anymore in 5e?

Powers. Base Level Modifiers for attack, defense, skill, and ability checks.

Stray

2014-06-09, 01:46 AM

According to WotC's latest Q&A Basic D&D should be available on 3rd of July. I would recommend to wait for that instead of relaying on nine months old playtest packets.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-09, 06:41 AM

5e seems like it will be quite easy to add in one of the old optional rules from 3.5 to make it more like 4e.

Getting rid of saving throws and making it an attack roll by the caster. With a little bit off fiddling around you can just translate that rule. It is in Unearthed Arcana (look here: www.d20srd.org)

My 4e group play tested a version of this and it went over quite well.

rlc

2014-06-15, 07:21 PM

I think you should consider 5E not so much as a tweaked and improved version of 4E, but as a whole new game (or possibly, as a tweaked version of 3E). So just like when transitioning from 3E to 4E or vice versa, the main differences would be "everything". Based on the playtest, 5E doesn't have powers, paragon paths, fort/ref/will defenses, action points, warlords, and so forth; do not assume that anything in 5E works the way it did in 4E.

Although I seem to remember reading somewhere that it does have Warlords, so who knows what else was left out. The playtest packets were just that, meant for playtests. The safest answer is probably "ask this again in about a month when the first book is released, but don't expect a complete answer until we have a few more of them."

Chaosvii7

2014-06-15, 07:46 PM

Although I seem to remember reading somewhere that it does have Warlords, so who knows what else was left out. The playtest packets were just that, meant for playtests. The safest answer is probably "ask this again in about a month when the first book is released, but don't expect a complete answer until we have a few more of them."

Warlord support existed in the form of the Bardic College of Valor, which expanded the Bard's proficiencies to include martial weapons and medium armor. Bards of Valor got some combat-oriented abilities which, stacked on top of the current Bard kit, made it a Gish Warlord. It's actually a really interesting take on the concept of the Warlord, but it's nothing like the 4e Warlord, or like 3e's Marshal.

That said, Bards have been changed from the final playtest packet and the player's handbook, so I have no idea what has happened to the College of Valor. They said that they retain the warlord-like aspects of the College of Valor while the Bard itself has changed to be a sort of combat caster with abilities reminiscent of what it used to be able to do, but that could mean anything.

Paladins were the original predecessor to the Warlords of 4e, so it's reasonable to assume that they too will have support for Warlords.

At one point they mentioned that any base class that was printed in a Player's Handbook would be made for 5e, but they never made Warlord it's own base class. Even Warlock was in the playtest for some time. It'd be a pleasant surprise to see a whole extra base class in the game, but I can't imagine them not playtesting a class and then releasing it just like that.

da_chicken

2014-06-15, 08:27 PM

Bard itself has changed to be a sort of combat caster with abilities reminiscent of what it used to be able to do, but that could mean anything.

No kidding. 1e Bard was (literally) a Fighter/Thief/Druid. 2e Bard was a less flexible single-class Thief/Mage. 3.0 Bard just... didn't work right and inspired Nale. 3.5e Bard was more of a Sorcerer/Cleric with extra skill points.

Paladins were the original predecessor to the Warlords of 4e, so it's reasonable to assume that they too will have support for Warlords.

I could see that. I could also see them saying that the Cleric of War is the Warlord.

rlc

2014-06-15, 08:48 PM

Hmmm, interesting. But, I'd say my point still stands about not really being able to answer until we actually have the final product.

Lokiare

2014-06-16, 02:52 AM

...I can't imagine them not playtesting a class and then releasing it just like that.

You mean like the Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock classes that they failed to play test after that one packet where they said they are scrapping what they had and starting over? I think people are giving Mearls and his 5 person full time crew waaay too much credit.

Hmmm, interesting. But, I'd say my point still stands about not really being able to answer until we actually have the final product.

I agree with you, well other than the articles where they said nothing much will change from the last packet except for some math fluctuations and a few new classes based on the already existing mechanics.

Envyus

2014-06-16, 04:17 AM

Lokiare

2014-06-16, 07:27 AM

You are also giving them too little credit. Also they are remaking the classes. So this comment makes no sense.

Read the quote that was in my post. It makes perfect sense.

Millennium

2014-06-16, 07:45 AM

Fwiffo86

2014-06-16, 01:52 PM

You mean like the Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock classes that they failed to play test after that one packet where they said they are scrapping what they had and starting over? I think people are giving Mearls and his 5 person full time crew waaay too much credit.

I do not understand this line. Are you saying that they did not play test after the packet featuring them? Instead just adding it to the final draft? I would think that they released the packet, either got or did not get the info they were after, and further tested things in-house, which we were not privy too. You seem awfully willing to believe they just dropped the ball and ignored it after that.

Lokiare

2014-06-17, 07:59 AM

I do not understand this line. Are you saying that they did not play test after the packet featuring them? Instead just adding it to the final draft? I would think that they released the packet, either got or did not get the info they were after, and further tested things in-house, which we were not privy too. You seem awfully willing to believe they just dropped the ball and ignored it after that.

Its the same thing. We've seen with 3E and 4E what their internal testers turn out. In 3E it was extremely broken things that combined with other broken things to break the game in half. In 4E it was the charOp board finding obviously broken things 5 minutes after the product releases, literally at a glance. From those experiences, their 'internal testers' which are likely just a few friends and family members don't know what they are doing or are overworked or otherwise unable to test properly.

I think they should have continued the public play test and not black listed half their critics from their website and then proceeded to make a game that everyone could love, instead of making a game that caters to a very narrow specific play style as 5E seems to be doing.

Also, they had one packet with the Sorcerer and Warlock in it. They pulled them out for the remainder of the play test and said they were going to scrap them and start over. Then the public play test was concluded without them testing those classes and a whole lot more. I think the Bard made it into the final packet, but that's the same thing. No revisions or alterations from feedback that was then tested.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-17, 08:30 AM

Its the same thing. We've seen with 3E and 4E what their internal testers turn out. In 3E it was extremely broken things that combined with other broken things to break the game in half. In 4E it was the charOp board finding obviously broken things 5 minutes after the product releases, literally at a glance. From those experiences, their 'internal testers' which are likely just a few friends and family members don't know what they are doing or are overworked or otherwise unable to test properly.

I think they should have continued the public play test and not black listed half their critics from their website and then proceeded to make a game that everyone could love, instead of making a game that caters to a very narrow specific play style as 5E seems to be doing.

Also, they had one packet with the Sorcerer and Warlock in it. They pulled them out for the remainder of the play test and said they were going to scrap them and start over. Then the public play test was concluded without them testing those classes and a whole lot more. I think the Bard made it into the final packet, but that's the same thing. No revisions or alterations from feedback that was then tested.

I understand. I agree with continuing the public play test. But is it reasonable to assume that things will always change according to what one person wants to see? I admit I have my opinions and etc, but when sending my play test information back to WotC, I did not expect anything I had to say to impact changes without a large majority of testers saying the same thing. I am not privy to the information/responses of other play testers.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-17, 12:06 PM

The shift between 4e and 5e is a radical one, much like the shift between 3e and 4e. The two systems aren't as different as, say, D&D (any edition) and Shadowrun, but they're different enough that I'm not sure it's possible to convert characters through any kind of automated process. Not without losing a lot of information and shifting power levels in unexpected ways, at any rate.

That's not to say that you can't bring characters across. But a better way to go would be to rebuild them from the ground up, using the previous edition's version as a guide. This is going to be a largely ad-hoc process, and the DM will probably need to make some rulings along the way, but it will likely yield better results.

Incidentally, I don't think that converting characters from other editions to 5e is going to be much easier. A little easier, yes, since 5e hews much more closely to D&D's mechanical roots than 4e did. But it will likely still be hard enough that it won't be possible to just have a process.

Actually the shift from 3e to 4e really isn't that radical. People like to blow smoke and make it radical but the games aren't really that different by core mechanics. You could easily just make 4e classes for the 3e mechanics since they use pretty much the same.

Attack roll versus AC.
Attack roll versus Defense (Fort,Ref,Will) was in unearthed arcana and was used in 3e. The mechanic is just bexakeards getting to the same resureally versus ACC... Thac0 versus 3e AC is the same way). Like 2 + 3 = 5 but 7 - 2 = 5.

Skill point less system was in 3e, they changed it a bit for 4e but it is pretty much the same.

4e is a bunch of rarely used 3e rules, and I like it for that reason. It put everyone on the same playing field.

But the change from 4e to 5e will be a radical change. Because the mentality and format is taking a step backwards on purpose (I didn't say that was bad mind you). This back peddling will look like "oopse we messed up" but really it is a "hey that market isn't as dried up as we thought". Could you imagine if the car industry did something like this? Like if they went back to non-areodynamic cars full time? The last try with that was the Aztec :p. Even big SUVs are more aerodynamic than they used to be...

I hope they drop essentials, pick up 4e some more (3rd party help perhaps?), and fully support 5e.

Or legend/heroes against darkness gain more popularity... :p

Lokiare

2014-06-17, 01:09 PM

I understand. I agree with continuing the public play test. But is it reasonable to assume that things will always change according to what one person wants to see? I admit I have my opinions and etc, but when sending my play test information back to WotC, I did not expect anything I had to say to impact changes without a large majority of testers saying the same thing. I am not privy to the information/responses of other play testers.

The point that you seem to be missing is not that its one person missing out on 5E its several play styles which are wildly popular. In fact there is only one play style that 5E fully supports and that is the gritty low magic fantasy vietnam play style. A very, very narrow play style. I'm surprised 5E is doing as good as it sounds. It should be an unmitigated disaster.

As I've shown over and over when I post, 5E could be made in a way that allows everyone to get what they want out of it by just using specific modules. Unfortunately WotC's idea of a module is a one line slight rules changes that is optional. When they need to be listed side by side with major changes going on. WotC is simply not interested in doing what they claimed.

Lokiare

2014-06-17, 01:10 PM

Actually the shift from 3e to 4e really isn't that radical. People like to blow smoke and make it radical but the games aren't really that different by core mechanics. You could easily just make 4e classes for the 3e mechanics since they use pretty much the same.

Attack roll versus AC.
Attack roll versus Defense (Fort,Ref,Will) was in unearthed arcana and was used in 3e. The mechanic is just bexakeards getting to the same resureally versus ACC... Thac0 versus 3e AC is the same way). Like 2 + 3 = 5 but 7 - 2 = 5.

Skill point less system was in 3e, they changed it a bit for 4e but it is pretty much the same.

4e is a bunch of rarely used 3e rules, and I like it for that reason. It put everyone on the same playing field.

But the change from 4e to 5e will be a radical change. Because the mentality and format is taking a step backwards on purpose (I didn't say that was bad mind you). This back peddling will look like "oopse we messed up" but really it is a "hey that market isn't as dried up as we thought". Could you imagine if the car industry did something like this? Like if they went back to non-areodynamic cars full time? The last try with that was the Aztec :p. Even big SUVs are more aerodynamic than they used to be...

I hope they drop essentials, pick up 4e some more (3rd party help perhaps?), and fully support 5e.

Or legend/heroes against darkness gain more popularity... :p

I once toyed with the idea of printing 4E stats and powers on a 3E character sheet with fighter powers hidden in the feats section just to see what reaction it would get from the 3E crowd.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-17, 01:15 PM

Could you imagine if the car industry did something like this? Like if they went back to non-areodynamic cars full time? The last try with that was the Aztec :p. Even big SUVs are more aerodynamic than they used to be...

To be completely fair, I'd love it if cars went back to having more unique styling, even at the expense of aerodynamics. So many cars look too identical today. The Aztec was a disaster of styling, but I think that had less to do with aerodynamic vs non aerodynamics and more the drinking and hard drugs before the design sessions. But let's be honest I would a thousand times over take this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Shelby_Mustang_GT350_1968_%282%29.jpg/1280px-Shelby_Mustang_GT350_1968_%282%29.jpg

over this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/2010_Ford_Mustang_GT_1_--_07-01-2009.jpg/1920px-2010_Ford_Mustang_GT_1_--_07-01-2009.jpg

Now if you mean going back to the 80's box design or the 90's bubble designs, I'm with you on preferring modern styling.

I once toyed with the idea of printing 4E stats and powers on a 3E character sheet with fighter powers hidden in the feats section just to see what reaction it would get from the 3E crowd.

I imagine you would get a largely positive response (assuming you cleaned up the whole stupid encounter/daily thing). Because despite what you seem to think, my experience with people who prefer other editions (and from you know, listening to them as opposed to attacking strawmen of their positions) had nothing to do with no wanting powerful fighters or even the general concept of the AEDU system. In fact, it's been my experience that even the people that prefer older editions find the 4e fighter to be an excellent experience. It's the rest of the game that falls flat.

Lokiare

2014-06-17, 01:29 PM

To be completely fair, I'd love it if cars went back to having more unique styling, even at the expense of aerodynamics. So many cars look too identical today. The Aztec was a disaster of styling, but I think that had less to do with aerodynamic vs non aerodynamics and more the drinking and hard drugs before the design sessions. But let's be honest I would a thousand times over take this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_%28first_generation%29#mediaviewer/File:Shelby_Mustang_GT350_1968_%282%29.jpg

over this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang#mediaviewer/File:2010_Ford_Mustang_GT_1_--_07-01-2009.jpg

Now if you mean going back to the 80's box design or the 90's bubble designs, I'm with you on preferring modern styling.

I imagine you would get a largely positive response (assuming you cleaned up the whole stupid encounter/daily thing). Because despite what you seem to think, my experience with people who prefer other editions (and from you know, listening to them as opposed to attacking strawmen of their positions) had nothing to do with no wanting powerful fighters or even the general concept of the AEDU system. In fact, it's been my experience that even the people that prefer older editions find the 4e fighter to be an excellent experience. It's the rest of the game that falls flat.

That's weird because the 'rest of the game' is literally just a cleaned up 3.5E. It uses the same rolling mechanics for adjudication (d20 + bonuses - penalties beat a DC). It has a slightly altered but cleaned up skill list. It has many of the same spells that are nearly identical to 3.5E but with less game breaking impact. Wizards get extra spells and prepare slots. Sorcerers cast their spells at a slightly higher power than wizards. Rogues sneak attack for massive damage...etc...etc... the encounter/daily powers are right out of ToB and any class but the Fighter gets them. Heck I remember rogues getting encounter/daily powers after a certain level in 3.5E, and Barbarians always had them from 2E on.

I listen to them, and then correct their mistaken musings about how 4E works. Nothing straw man about it. When I can quote the rule book and prove them wrong without saying another word, then they are incorrect. I do it all the time, from when they say all the classes play the same to 'its like WoW'. So I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say 'The rest of the game'.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-17, 01:52 PM

I once toyed with the idea of printing 4E stats and powers on a 3E character sheet with fighter powers hidden in the feats section just to see what reaction it would get from the 3E crowd.

I've done something like this. The people who hate 4e loved it just as much as the ones who were on the fence.

Most of the problems with 4e seems to be with the Magic System not with the classes or martial types (though I hate the daily powers for martial.... At will and encounters are enough).

To be completely fair, I'd love it if cars went back to having more unique styling, even at the expense of aerodynamics. So many cars look too identical today. The Aztec was a disaster of styling, but I think that had less to do with aerodynamic vs non aerodynamics and more the drinking and hard drugs before the design sessions. But let's be honest I would a thousand times over take this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_%28first_generation%29#mediaviewer/File:Shelby_Mustang_GT350_1968_%282%29.jpg

over this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang#mediaviewer/File:2010_Ford_Mustang_GT_1_--_07-01-2009.jpg

Now if you mean going back to the 80's box design or the 90's bubble designs, I'm with you on preferring modern styling.

I imagine you would get a largely positive response (assuming you cleaned up the whole stupid encounter/daily thing). Because despite what you seem to think, my experience with people who prefer other editions (and from you know, listening to them as opposed to attacking strawmen of their positions) had nothing to do with no wanting powerful fighters or even the general concept of the AEDU system. In fact, it's been my experience that even the people that prefer older editions find the 4e fighter to be an excellent experience. It's the rest of the game that falls flat.

Monks tend to be loved from 4e too.

But yeah I agree, I prefer the old cars. However gas mileage is king now days and if you get to far away from that you won't meet standards or people's expectations. You have to change slowly. Which may have been 4e's fault, they changed to fast.

But I was thinking of the 80's and 90's cars... *shiver*... There was some great machines there but they looked horrid...

My grandmother (btw who was a preacher, random note) drove a Barricuda 440 Hemi, I get my car preference from her :D

Edit:

4e is like taking a Toyota Corolla back to 1960's USA and trying to sell it. It would have been to much change way to fast. Probably would have sold like hot cakes though.

(Gas might be a problem, hmm when did we get rid of Lead in our gasoline? I feel like I should know this.)

1337 b4k4

2014-06-17, 02:03 PM

So I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say 'The rest of the game'.

It's been explained to you half a dozen times before, on this forum alone. As you say, I'm not spoon feeding you information that's right in front of your face.

But I was thinking of the 80's and 90's cars... *shiver*... There was some great machines there but they looked horrid...

Yeah, talk about a period of design disasters. There was a brief moment during the transition from late 80's to early 90's where things were OK (like the NA Miata/MX-5), but otherwise, oy.

BTW, I corrected those picture links so you should be able to see the glory vs the fail.

My grandmother (btw who was a preacher, random note) drove a Barricuda 440 Hemi, I get my car preference from her :D

Hah. Ever since the days of Nash Bridges, I have wanted a Barracuda. I'd never be able to afford the gas in a land yacht like that these days, but a man can dream.

Millennium

2014-06-17, 02:08 PM

Actually the shift from 3e to 4e really isn't that radical.
Yet the shift from 4e to 5e is? It's not quite a matter of just shifting to the same degree in the opposite direction, but it's pretty close. Why is one shift radical and the other not?

People like to blow smoke and make it radical but the games aren't really that different by core mechanics.
In terms of the thing that actually gets called the core mechanic (roll a d20, add bonuses, and try to get higher than some number X), yes. That's pretty close to the end of it: other than the names of certain classes, the only things 3.x has in common with 4.x are the same things that 4.x has in common with all the other editions, going all the way back to the white box.

You could easily just make 4e classes for the 3e mechanics since they use pretty much the same.
What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Could you imagine if the car industry did something like this? Like if they went back to non-areodynamic cars full time?
People make mistakes. The proper response is to learn whatever you can from the experience, and then go back to what works. This is what is happening here.

da_chicken

2014-06-17, 02:25 PM

I've done something like this. The people who hate 4e loved it just as much as the ones who were on the fence.

Most of the problems with 4e seems to be with the Magic System not with the classes or martial types (though I hate the daily powers for martial.... At will and encounters are enough).

Monks tend to be loved from 4e too.

Yep, I loved me some 4e Fighter and Monk, and never cared much for the 4e magic classes.

4e is like taking a Toyota Corolla back to 1960's USA and trying to sell it. It would have been to much change way to fast. Probably would have sold like hot cakes though.

The Corolla was introduced in 1966. :smallwink:

(Gas might be a problem, hmm when did we get rid of Lead in our gasoline? I feel like I should know this.)

It was phased, because vehicles were expensive and you couldn't always convert them. I'm nearly 40, and I remember gas stations selling leaded and unleaded gas the way they sell gas and diesel today. I remember the split between leaded and unleaded being fairly even (likely the late 1970s) fading to having just one leaded pump through most of the 80s with the pumps steadily disappearing. I remember one station around here that still had a leaded pump in the mid 1990s, but it hasn't had one for at least 20 years. My guess is that the final ban happened about then. I think the ban on actually producing new vehicles with engines that required leaded gasoline was in the mid 1980s.

If my mom's cousin was still alive I'd ask him. He was a huge Chevy/Pontiac gearhead. I remember him complaining that catalytic converters killed horsepower.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-17, 02:26 PM

Yet the shift from 4e to 5e is? It's not quite a matter of just shifting to the same degree in the opposite direction, but it's pretty close. Why is one shift radical and the other not?

In terms of the thing that actually gets called the core mechanic (roll a d20, add bonuses, and try to get higher than some number X), yes. That's pretty close to the end of it: other than the names of certain classes, the only things 3.x has in common with 4.x are the same things that 4.x has in common with all the other editions, going all the way back to the white box.

What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

People make mistakes. The proper response is to learn whatever you can from the experience, and then go back to what works. This is what is happening here.

If you read, what I said was that the radical change was the backpedaling of the company and not the system itself.

Are you saying 4e was a mistake? Damn, if I can make a mistake that makes that much money and curbstomps my competitor ... I would love to. The only mistake really was when they went to essentials, that is when 4e started to dip under Pathfinder.

Look at Unearthed Arcana, many of the rules for 4e are right there or can easily be made from what is in that book. How is it radical if the game before it had the same rules?

Why not read what I wrote instead of taking bits of it and blowing it up like the world is ending. I don't take drugs or condone them but you need to chill out.

Just because your definition of radical is something along the lines of "barely any change" doesn't mean you are right. Radical changes in D&D would be something more like... Getting rid of the d20 in favor of 2d6 (which actually is a variant rule lol) or making it a classless system.

As said many times, I've ran 4e characters in 3.P games. The 3.5 guys thought it was a pathfinder character and the pathfinder guys thought it was a 3.5 character. I did this for the warlock, fighter, invoker, and I'm planning on doing it for the Warden (druid type). Sometimes there are people who are both 3.5 and pathfinder and they just think it is some obscure book they never heard of.

Just because you can't fathom a possibility doesn't mean it can't work.

Edit:

I meant to say 2010 Corolla haha, my car Caroline was what I was using as a base and just typed Corolla without the year. The point was any newer car would be weird and confusing to people back then without a steady progression of some sort. Heck one day we may say the 4e was ahead of its time. I'll reply to the rest in a bit.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-17, 02:51 PM

Are you saying 4e was a mistake? Damn, if I can make a mistake that makes that much money and curbstomps my competitor ... I would love to.

When you're the market leader, you can still make a lot of money from your mistakes. Case in point, Windows Vista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Sales). 20 Million copies sold in the first month (more than WinXP in its first month), install base of 330 Million after 2 years. That's a lot of money, and creamed it's competitors (not including internal competition from Win XP). It's still widely considered a mistake.

Generally, when you're a market leader, a mistake is anything that weakens your position, regardless of the actual total sales. This is especially true in a zero-sum market share analysis.

Felhammer

2014-06-18, 01:13 AM

The shift to 4E from 3.x was not hard, especially if you were familiar with Tome of Battle or played Star Wars Saga Edition.

Changing Saving Throws to Defenses was a common house rule.

Kills were simplified, easy to grasp.

The biggest change is just adjusting your preconceptions to what a fighter can do compared to a wizard. Once you have mastered that, you are pretty much golden.

The change from 4E to 5E will be equally as easy. Honestly, the biggest difference is going to be for the DM and how he approaches adventure design, now that a hundred level 1 monsters can be a threat at level 20. Even then, it is just a matter of attuning your conceptions and adjusting to the new normal.

For all their differences, no edition of D&D is as different to one another as they all are collectively as different compared to something like Exalted.

Millennium

2014-06-18, 09:02 AM

Are you saying 4e was a mistake? Damn, if I can make a mistake that makes that much money and curbstomps my competitor ... I would love to. The only mistake really was when they went to essentials, that is when 4e started to dip under Pathfinder.
They went to Essentials because the writing was on the wall: sales figures were already beginning to crash and burn, and although Essentials didn't prove to be enough of a fix to reverse that, it was an honest attempt. 4e made a lot of short-term gains, but only at the cost of half or more of the customer base. Stock speculators love numbers like that, but no one else does, not even long-term investors, to say nothing of informed consumers. It represents the kind of blunder that most businesses never recover from.

Look at Unearthed Arcana, many of the rules for 4e are right there or can easily be made from what is in that book. How is it radical if the game before it had the same rules?
Because it didn't have the same rules. There is a reason these rules were not in the core of 3e.

Though I am forced to wonder just how many were actually there. I don't have my copy of UA on hand at the moment, but the only thing I can find in d20srd's variants section is the "Players Roll All the Dice" variant, and 4e only implements that partially at best

As said many times, I've ran 4e characters in 3.P games. The 3.5 guys thought it was a pathfinder character and the pathfinder guys thought it was a 3.5 character. I did this for the warlock, fighter, invoker, and I'm planning on doing it for the Warden (druid type). Sometimes there are people who are both 3.5 and pathfinder and they just think it is some obscure book they never heard of.
I find this very, very difficult to believe. I assume these were all play-by-post, as there is simply no way you could maintain the cover otherwise: are any of them on public forums?

Just because you can't fathom a possibility doesn't mean it can't work.
You're right; I need more than that. I hold up the history of 4e as my evidence.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-18, 06:00 PM

They went to Essentials because the writing was on the wall: sales figures were already beginning to crash and burn, and although Essentials didn't prove to be enough of a fix to reverse that, it was an honest attempt. 4e made a lot of short-term gains, but only at the cost of half or more of the customer base. Stock speculators love numbers like that, but no one else does, not even long-term investors, to say nothing of informed consumers. It represents the kind of blunder that most businesses never recover from.

Because it didn't have the same rules. There is a reason these rules were not in the core of 3e.

Though I am forced to wonder just how many were actually there. I don't have my copy of UA on hand at the moment, but the only thing I can find in d20srd's variants section is the "Players Roll All the Dice" variant, and 4e only implements that partially at best

I find this very, very difficult to believe. I assume these were all play-by-post, as there is simply no way you could maintain the cover otherwise: are any of them on public forums?

You're right; I need more than that. I hold up the history of 4e as my evidence.

I don't do play by post, way to troublesome for me. The DM was in on it when I was a player and when I was a DM I ran the character as a DMNPC when players where gone.

There is more than just players roll everything.

The skill system is mostly in there, rankless skills that you take at first level that auto progress.

Ritual casting is in there. All of those spells in 3.5 that should take longer or weren't made for combat? Ritual.

We have the three main changes from 3e to 4e already in 3e... What I'm surprised about is that they were able to call 4e a new game.

Other stuff can be found in ToB, martial getting maneuvers and such.

Hmmm what else, oh! In PHB 2 there is a alternate druid type that changes 3e Wildshape into what essentially became 4e Wildshape. Biggest difference is that the 3e Wildshape got some bonuses while in Wildshape.

Action points are in UA too I think, but that may be another book that I'm thinking about.

That is just off the top of my head right now. Unearthed Arcana is considered the fourth "core" book. The reason why the options in there are optional is because the phbI already came out. They added more rules to give people options to spice up their games or try something new. They aren't optional because they didn't make the cut, why put them in there if they weren't good enough to begin with? That is a bit backwards (though it is WotC ...).

Kurald Galain

2014-06-18, 06:03 PM

Unearthed Arcana is considered the fourth "core" book.

Whatever gives you that idea? I don't think I've ever met anyone who used, or even liked, UA. If any book would be the "fourth core" then it's either the PHB2 or one of those "Complete Foo" books.

da_chicken

2014-06-18, 07:03 PM

Whatever gives you that idea? I don't think I've ever met anyone who used, or even liked, UA. If any book would be the "fourth core" then it's either the PHB2 or one of those "Complete Foo" books.

Some players in my group love it. I think it's fine in small doses. Mostly I like it because it gives you ideas for things to try. I think UA is one of the most utilized books we've gotten.

There are some DMs who used to always let players take two flaws (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm). We had a lot of Murky-Eyed. Inattentive, Noncombatant, Shaky, and Unreactive characters. It was pretty dumb, but this DM loved it for a long time.

Recently we've had a lot of fun with rolling two random traits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm). Traits have to be rolled immediately after character creation is complete. It's a nice challenge to have part of your character's behavior determined for you, but not everybody likes it.

Most of the variant classes (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantClasses.htm) have been allowed, too. Cloistered Cleric is a perennial favorite. I even ran a Gestalt campaign when we only had 3 players for a few months.

We've used action points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm) extensively. I'm pretty sure UA is where they originated in 3e.

We ran spell points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) once. That was hilariously broken. So are Item Familiars (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/itemFamiliars.htm) as I recall.

One of the players wants to try the armor as DR variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm). I'm pretty sure it just doesn't work.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-18, 09:11 PM

Some players in my group love it. I think it's fine in small doses. Mostly I like it because it gives you ideas for things to try. I think UA is one of the most utilized books we've gotten.

There are some DMs who used to always let players take two flaws (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm). We had a lot of Murky-Eyed. Inattentive, Noncombatant, Shaky, and Unreactive characters. It was pretty dumb, but this DM loved it for a long time.

Recently we've had a lot of fun with rolling two random traits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm). Traits have to be rolled immediately after character creation is complete. It's a nice challenge to have part of your character's behavior determined for you, but not everybody likes it.

Most of the variant classes (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantClasses.htm) have been allowed, too. Cloistered Cleric is a perennial favorite. I even ran a Gestalt campaign when we only had 3 players for a few months.

We've used action points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm) extensively. I'm pretty sure UA is where they originated in 3e.

We ran spell points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) once. That was hilariously broken. So are Item Familiars (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/itemFamiliars.htm) as I recall.

One of the players wants to try the armor as DR variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm). I'm pretty sure it just doesn't work.

A lot of the alternate systems needs either math fixes or spell fixes to work properly, however we are talking about 3.5 here. D&D 3.5 isn't known for being sound even outside of UA.

KG: UA is the "fourth core" book because it is used so much like it is part of core, and it is part of the OGL. I would love to add Psionics as part of core too (due to being OGL) but sadly people have such a huge problem with the fluff. Since I started playing 3.5, I don't know of a single game where the DM said no to UA.

Though Psionics is how the spell point system should and could work, if the spells in 3.5 were made correctly to work within a spell point system instead of just tacking on the spell point system...