Upgrading to 5e from 4e

[arcane_asp]

Hi Playground,

I couldn't find a thread that already covered this, apologies if it already exists and I missed it :smallredface:

Finally talked my gaming group into leaving their comfort zone and upgrading to D&D 5E, got my handbooks bought and ready, nearly good to begin. One of the conditions of them starting 5E is that they want to port their much loved characters over from 4E.

I can easily build their character classes/races in 5E, but I'm not familiar enough with it yet to know how the levels match up against each other. They left their 4E chars at 10th level, but I'm getting the impression that this doesn't equate (in terms of power level) to 10th level 5E.

There's a similar issue with their magic items, I'm not entirely sure how +2 / +3 magic items would translate over into 5E. Has anyone dealt with this issue yet? Is there a rule of thumb for switching to 5E from 4th in this way?

[Kyutaru]

No there isn't and that's because 4E is such a drastically different system from every other edition that it can hardly be considered a D&D game anymore.

My advice would be that if they are level 10, just make them level 10. The level 21-30 range in 4E is more of an epic levels thing which 5E handles in a different way. As for magical items, trash ALL of them, they are BROKEN in 5E's accuracy system. Instead just give them a starting amount of gold appropriate to their level and let them repurchase similar items from the DMG.

Your friends are used to playing a very tactical MMORPG turn-based strategy game in the form of 4E so 5E's focus on quick combat "getting to the story bits" will be a big change. The rules of 5E act more as guidelines to facilitate easier roleplay sessions, the combat itself can be considered simplistic or awful. So much about 5E relies on simplifying a game that has become absurdly complicated over the decades. It's even possible to play 5E without magic items at all and there's minimal character customization to be done, letting players/DMs worry about forging their own details and narrative.

Any way you transfer the characters is going to feel like starting over to them. The characters of 5E are extremely mortal, not the gods of past editions.

[Kurald Galain]

So the most important question is, what aspect of their character do the players find important? And if their characters have an iconic ability, would they prefer getting an ability with the same name that works very differently, or an ability with a similar function but a wildly different name?

Also relevant are the questions (1) why do the players enjoy 4E, and (2) what are your reasons for switching to 5E. It's all about aligning expectations.

[Kryx]

5E's focus on quick combat "getting to the story bits" will be a big change. The rules of 5E act more as guidelines to facilitate easier roleplay sessions, the combat itself can be considered simplistic or awful.
I don't agree with this at all. I find the combat quite compelling. I've played 3.5, PF, 4e, 5e. It's a better(read: faster) version of combat imo.

Though I do agree with chucking magic items entirely.

[Madfellow]

I can easily build their character classes/races in 5E, but I'm not familiar enough with it yet to know how the levels match up against each other. They left their 4E chars at 10th level, but I'm getting the impression that this doesn't equate (in terms of power level) to 10th level 5E.

There's a similar issue with their magic items, I'm not entirely sure how +2 / +3 magic items would translate over into 5E. Has anyone dealt with this issue yet? Is there a rule of thumb for switching to 5E from 4th in this way?

I agree with Kyutaru in that I think it would be easiest to just make them level 10 characters. For the magic items, I think reducing the bonus on each of them by 1 should be enough to smooth things out. I think if you want to have as smooth a transition as possible, they should be able to keep their prized loot. :smallsmile: For the tactical combat they're used to, I would suggest implementing the expanded combat rules in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

[Kryx]

For the magic items, I think reducing the bonus on each of them by 1 should be enough to smooth things out.
4e's scale is 1-6. 5e's scale is 1-3. If anything halve them.

Even then 4e's math expects you to have magic items otherwise you fall behind. 5e does not and by giving them +1 or +2 magic items you're giving them a 5-10% higher chance to hit and encounters will be easier because of it.

[Madfellow]

4e's scale is 1-6. 5e's scale is 1-3. If anything halve them.

Even then 4e's math expects you to have magic items otherwise you fall behind. 5e does not and by giving them +1 or +2 magic items you're giving them a 5-10% higher chance to hit and encounters will be easier because of it.

The OP's post indicated that the party's loot was in the +2/+3 range, which would translate to +1/+2. Those would be powerful, yes, but they wouldn't break the game.

[Yorrin]

There are a few good ways to go about this, but there's not really any rule of thumb I'm aware of. In terms of level, you can basically just say lvl10=lvl10 (no need to drop them levels in addition to all the other changes they'll be going through). But all your magic items should probably drop back to +1s at most, and if you've got the standard 4e magic items for 10th level then you can stop giving them items with +x to combat for a few levels.

In general, magic items in 5e cap at +3, and those are like nearly artifact level items. DMG pg 38 has a suggested magic items (and cash) by level, so right now they're supposed to have a single item (assuming you're using the high magic column). Since the math doesn't need all the +x magic items that 4e requires, you can even have some of them retain their other properties but lose the +x to AC/attack/damage/etc except for a single item (probably a weapon or armor). Note that +x to saving throws isn't really a thing anymore. Note also that even at lvl20 the high magic suggestion only has them with 6 magic items a piece.

Other than that you'll have to get them used to a less tactical type of combat, but there are even some optional DMG rules that can move you back to that direction. Overall it's nothing that a decent DM can't ease them into, though.

[Kryx]

The OP's post indicated that the party's loot was in the +2/+3 range, which would translate to +1/+2. Those would be powerful, yes, but they wouldn't break the game.
Some DMs are ok with giving 5-15% more than the system expects.
Some, like me, believe those items are there for legacy reasons and don't quite fit with bounded accuracy 5e.

It's up to the DM to decide - I'm just bringing it up because magic items in 4e are very different from 5e.

[arcane_asp]

That's cool, I think they felt that getting to L10 was a bit of a milestone so it will be good not to rob them of that.

TBH, they are all getting more interested in deeper story & characters, which is why I felt that 4E was getting a bit 'clunky'. We are all looking forward to quicker combat encounters, although the magic users are going to have to get used to a more complicated spells system.

Most of the magic items can be slashed down to +1 / +2 items so that should be easy to do. I'm doing a simple 'tester' dungeon so everyone can get a feel for the new mechanics and get used to their class features. I have come for help & advice to the playground a few times before but here is the party and what I think they'll want to preserve about their characters:

Human fighter - party tank, well armoured and defensive. Former WoW player who believes in locking down groups of enemies and soaking damage. He had multi-classed into Bard, but hadn't really developed that side of the character too much (beyond the obligatory healing words & drinking songs)

Human wizard - nerdy tinkerer, more general magical toolkit than blaster. He had also multi-classed into cleric (Avandra), this had a strong plot tie-in so will want to keep this element of his character.

Elven ranger - not too worried about converting this, a vanilla 'archery master' ranger

Dragonborn warlock - infernal pact style warlock, likes dealing big amounts of damage rolling lots of dice.

Tiefling rogue - not too worried about this one either, should convert to 5E rogue with largely similar abilities/class features

[ProphetSword]

I converted a character in my campaign from Pathfinder to 5e. In the end, I had to reduce the level (from 10th to 7th) and strip away most of the magic items. The items that were kept were reduced in power, but I came to a compromise that the player was happy with.

Example: The sword the player had in Pathfinder was like this:

+3 Long Sword, 1d6 Fire Damage, Icy Burst 1d10 (on a critical hit).

In 5e, I made it this:

+1 Long Sword, +1 Fire Damage, Icy Burst 1d6 (on a natural 20).

That worked out to about the right power level and kept the theme of the character he wanted. So, it's really a matter of just keeping the idea behind the items and lowering their potency.

[Kurald Galain]

I converted a character in my campaign from Pathfinder to 5e. In the end, I had to reduce the level (from 10th to 7th)

I'm surprised to hear that; a 10th level PF character strikes me as much stronger than a 7th level 5E character.

[Madfellow]

Human fighter - party tank, well armoured and defensive. Former WoW player who believes in locking down groups of enemies and soaking damage. He had multi-classed into Bard, but hadn't really developed that side of the character too much (beyond the obligatory healing words & drinking songs)

Human wizard - nerdy tinkerer, more general magical toolkit than blaster. He had also multi-classed into cleric (Avandra), this had a strong plot tie-in so will want to keep this element of his character.

Elven ranger - not too worried about converting this, a vanilla 'archery master' ranger

Dragonborn warlock - infernal pact style warlock, likes dealing big amounts of damage rolling lots of dice.

Tiefling rogue - not too worried about this one either, should convert to 5E rogue with largely similar abilities/class features

The fighter will probably want the Battlemaster archetype, and you ought to point him in the direction of the Polearm Master and Sentinel feats. The DM's Guide includes rules for Marking enemies, which he should appreciate. Could multiclass or simply take the Entertainer background.

The wizard could make use of the Artificer tradition released in WotC's Eberron document (free pdf from their website). Could multiclass or simply take the Acolyte background.

The rest should be easy conversions. The ranger will probably want the Hunter archetype. Good luck. :smallsmile:

[obryn]

I would distrust any direct conversion guidelines, from 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, PF, whatever, to 5e.

Whenever you're moving from one game or edition to another, my suggestion is always to focus on a character's themes and find the bits in the new system that match those themes the most closely, then (mechanically) building them in the new system from scratch.

[Yorrin]

Human fighter - party tank, well armoured and defensive. Former WoW player who believes in locking down groups of enemies and soaking damage. He had multi-classed into Bard, but hadn't really developed that side of the character too much (beyond the obligatory healing words & drinking songs)
Variant Human Battlemaster Fighter using his feat for Magic Initiate to pick up a couple Bard spells. Perhaps a Performer background if applicable.


Human wizard - nerdy tinkerer, more general magical toolkit than blaster. He had also multi-classed into cleric (Avandra), this had a strong plot tie-in so will want to keep this element of his character.
Sounds like a Transmuter to me, with a mutliclass into Cleric of either Knowledge or Trickery. I'd advise Wizard 8/Cleric 2. Alternatively this could just be a straight Wizard with an Acolyte background.


Elven ranger - not too worried about converting this, a vanilla 'archery master' ranger
Dragonborn warlock - infernal pact style warlock, likes dealing big amounts of damage rolling lots of dice.
Tiefling rogue - not too worried about this one either, should convert to 5E rogue with largely similar abilities/class features
These are all pretty direct translations.

[arcane_asp]

Thanks guys, this all helpful stuff :smallbiggrin:

How do the attributes translate over to 5e? Some of the characters have STR values of 20+ in 4e - this is obviously not compatible with 5e at all (as far as I can tell - still new to 5e as I mentioned).

Is there scope for using the old 2e method of having 18/36 as a value for an attribute? To represent exceptional ability in an area, or chance of exceptional ability. Or is 18 the max attribute allowed for a PC, end of discussion?

Generating the characters HP should provide similar values, but I will need to have the attributes accurately recorded by then as Constitution gets added to the HP increase...

[Yorrin]

How do the attributes translate over to 5e? Some of the characters have STR values of 20+ in 4e - this is obviously not compatible with 5e at all (as far as I can tell - still new to 5e as I mentioned).

Is there scope for using the old 2e method of having 18/36 as a value for an attribute? To represent exceptional ability in an area, or chance of exceptional ability. Or is 18 the max attribute allowed for a PC, end of discussion?
The cap in 5e is 20. You could either just drop all the 21+ scores to a 20 or if you feel they'll still be too powerful you could have them roll ability scores over again. Keep in mind that stat bumps in 5e come at the cost of feats and vice-versa, so if you're using their 4e stats that will take some adjudication.


Generating the characters HP should provide similar values, but I will need to have the attributes accurately recorded by then as Constitution gets added to the HP increase...

For HP I use the flat values suggested in the class descriptions and have been quite enjoying it. 4e HP was largely inflated, so you'll want to do HP from scratch for sure.

[Kryx]

How do the attributes translate over to 5e? Some of the characters have STR values of 20+ in 4e - this is obviously not compatible with 5e at all
They should really start over in stats. Have them recalculate from level 1.

[obryn]

Thanks guys, this all helpful stuff :smallbiggrin:

How do the attributes translate over to 5e? Some of the characters have STR values of 20+ in 4e - this is obviously not compatible with 5e at all (as far as I can tell - still new to 5e as I mentioned).

Is there scope for using the old 2e method of having 18/36 as a value for an attribute? To represent exceptional ability in an area, or chance of exceptional ability. Or is 18 the max attribute allowed for a PC, end of discussion?

Generating the characters HP should provide similar values, but I will need to have the attributes accurately recorded by then as Constitution gets added to the HP increase...
They do not translate at all.

As was mentioned, recalculate stats and HP from Level 1. Their stats will be lower in 5e than in pretty much any edition other than AD&D or BECMI/RC.

[ProphetSword]

I'm surprised to hear that; a 10th level PF character strikes me as much stronger than a 7th level 5E character.

It is. But he was joining a group of other 7th level characters, so he took the hit in levels. He hasn't complained, and he was happy with the item changes; because he understands the game needs to be balanced.

[arcane_asp]

Okay, I should have all I need to get cracking on this. Its going to take a session sitting down with all the players to upgrade them but thanks to the Playground I'm all set :smallcool:


keeping levels the same
will let individuals decide to take flat values for hp or recalculate from L1
will re-generate attributes from L1
scale down items to +1 / +2 bonuses
multi-classing characters can choose which & how many levels to dabble in
make sure group is aware their characters are more fragile (comparatively) than in 4e



Have I missed anything else out?

[obryn]

Okay, I should have all I need to get cracking on this. Its going to take a session sitting down with all the players to upgrade them but thanks to the Playground I'm all set :smallcool:


keeping levels the same
will let individuals decide to take flat values for hp or recalculate from L1
will re-generate attributes from L1
scale down items to +1 / +2 bonuses
multi-classing characters can choose which & how many levels to dabble in
make sure group is aware their characters are more fragile (comparatively) than in 4e



Have I missed anything else out?
You might want to watch out; the players with martial characters (especially the Fighter) might feel starved for options at this level. Just something to keep an eye on.

[Madfellow]

Have I missed anything else out?

In my experience, combat in 5th can sometimes feel like a game of Rocket Tag. Just be ready for it.

Good luck. :smallsmile:

[charcoalninja]

Have your tanky fighter dip 2 levels of Fiend Warlock for Fiendish Vigor and Repelling Blast. This will allow him to start every fight off with 8 Temp hp from false life at will, and every time he kills someone he gains more temp HP which will aid in his survivability markedly. Between this dip, the marking rules in the DMG, and the Sentinal feat he should be playing at least approachably to what he was capable of in 4e. Well as close as 5e can get you to it. Bonus points if he can take warcaster as well to repelling eldrich blast people 30ft if they provoke an AOO from him.

[Dizlag]

I don't know how many magical items each of the players have, but in 5E you can only attune to 3 magical items at one time. That is, magical items that require attunement ... for example, a cloak of elvenkind (action to activate it and gives advantage on stealth checks). Although, you're the DM so you can tweak this rule to make your players happy and have fun.

An important aspect of 5E is magic items aren't as relied upon by the characters as in previous editions to be effective. So, keep that in mind.

Dizlag

[Sjappo]

They should really start over in stats. Have them recalculate from level 1.
This, and you night want to look at the starting stats as well. 5e expects lower stats across the board with a 15 as highest before race. 3.5 usually starts with an 18 or a couple of 16's before race. Don't know for 4e but I expect the same.

[Oscredwin]

This, and you night want to look at the starting stats as well. 5e expects lower stats across the board with a 15 as highest before race. 3.5 usually starts with an 18 or a couple of 16's before race. Don't know for 4e but I expect the same.

In 4E point buy was default and it was normal to start with an 18 or a 20 in your attack stat (optimizers generally insisted on a 20). Anything less than a 16 at level 1 was hopelessly weak.

[arcane_asp]

Haha - you guys may be amused to know that the player who is the Wizard character told me that "he seems different to the fighters now, like a proper wizard". The player who is the fighter told me he didn't like the system as it felt like his fighter couldn't do any 'special moves' anymore.

This may take some time to adjust, but 2/3 of the group have already perceived the differences and seem to take it positively. 5e may be the right move after all :smallbiggrin:

[Madfellow]

The player who is the fighter told me he didn't like the system as it felt like his fighter couldn't do any 'special moves' anymore.

This is a common complaint, but I'm not sure it's an accurate one. Yes, the fighter no longer has a spell-like progression of maneuvers, but in exchange it's received a much more versatile suite of abilities.

For example, in 4e fighters had a maneuver that let them attack, move, and attack again. In 5e, that's just something fighters can do, and they don't need a special maneuver with a special name to tell them they can do it. The Battlemaster archetype offers a decent collection of abilities to tack onto its attacks, which offers more choice in combat. Do I use any maneuvers this turn? How many? Which ones? Do I Action Surge this turn? Do I go melee or ranged?

So instead of having a progression of discrete powers the same way the wizard does, the fighter now has the ability to customize their own "special moves" on the fly, every turn.

[Knaight]

This is a common complaint, but I'm not sure it's an accurate one. Yes, the fighter no longer has a spell-like progression of maneuvers, but in exchange it's received a much more versatile suite of abilities.

Kind of, but not really. The movement changes are there, and there's a small set of maneuvers in the traditional sense (disarming, grappling, that sort of thing). D&D abstracts out combat enough that most of what the fighter does is simple attacking, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing it does represent simpler play. That's not because of the removal of the spell-like progression of maneuvers; several games have demonstrated that one can have nothing of the sort and still have very intricate combat systems with a lot of decision making. Just look at Burning Wheel, or even GURPS run at high detail. Both have a lot of complexity. Both are also a bit of a pain to deal with if you don't want to deal with that complexity, and Burning Wheel's combat system is explicitly there to make rare, character-significant fights a big deal and would be a total drag to bring out with the frequency expected in D&D.

[Gryndle]

My group just recently switched our campaign over to 5E from 4E as well. Most of the translation went smoothly, with only one exception, and that being magic items.
For ability scores we just reverted back to our starting scores before the 4E bonuses from gaining levels. We haven't had any problems with that at all.

Where I went wrong in the process was with magic items. I felt like I pretty heavily nerfed their gear. In fact I had not nerfed them enough.
Like someone else suggested, I should have just removed their existing items and replaced them with appropriate 5E alternatives. Lesson learned there.
At this point rather than tinker any further, I just really limit what they find from this point on, until I feel like things start to balance out.

We still use grid-based combat, 5E translates easy enough there. Everyone feels like they are doing something, no one feels left out.
Even our dwarf fighter feels like he has a lot of flexibility in combat, WHEN he remembers to use his superiority dice and special maneuvers.

[obryn]

This is a common complaint, but I'm not sure it's an accurate one.
At 10th level, it's a very accurate complaint. By 15th, it's even moreso.

Additionally, the 5e Fighter's ability to defend its allies is severely constrained, as well, due to Reaction restrictions.

[ChubbyRain]

At 10th level, it's a very accurate complaint. By 15th, it's even moreso.

Additionally, the 5e Fighter's ability to defend its allies is severely constrained, as well, due to Reaction restrictions.

Plus as you go up in level your enemies become to large to use maneuvers on.

But yeah, pushing someone at level 10, 15, or 20 is totally what should be expected of a mid to high level character (be it magic or not).

What's sad is that Peter Griffin is a better Fighter than the D&D Fighter. He completely parries Cybil Shepard's fire breath with his shield and can throw his melee weapon and murderlate her. He even shows that he has evasion.

http://youtu.be/VXAaVR9O9Zo

[NotALurker]

No there isn't and that's because 4E is such a drastically different system from every other edition that it can hardly be considered a D&D game anymore.


D&D is whatever the current right holders say it is, anything else is just what ever you personal think, that applies to and only you.

4e was just as much D&D as 2e, 3e or any other version.

to some any system with feats is not D&D, to others anything without a warlord in the core book is not D&D.


---
to the OP, 4e did its best to have everyone matter, 5e does not. a level 10 fighter could easily be outshined all the time by casters for example. even in areas that he built his character around, and that he thinks he is good at (when in reality he is good at nothing)

[ChubbyRain]

D&D is whatever the current right holders say it is, anything else is just what ever you personal think, that allies to and only you.

4e was just as much D&D as 2e, 3e or any other version.

to some any system with feats is not D&D, to others anything without a warlord in the core book is not D&D.

Someday I'm going to buy the rights to the name D&D and stuff... I'm going to make the rule book have all these pictures of dragons, wizards, and elves, and stuff...

The rules will be that of red rover.

And even that will be D&D, because I said so. :)

The notion that 4e isn't D&D is so laughable that I just can't even, I just can't.

[Submortimer]

With regards to Magic items, there is a table in the DMG for starting characters out at levels higher than first and what kind of gold, gear, and magic items they should have based on the type of game. Go with level 10, find the spot on that table for high magic setting (lets face it, that's totally what 4e was), and your players should be able to get a few good things out of the book.

[Submortimer]

D&D is whatever the current right holders say it is, anything else is just what ever you personal think, that applies to and only you.

4e was just as much D&D as 2e, 3e or any other version.

to some any system with feats is not D&D, to others anything without a warlord in the core book is not D&D.



I don't exactly think that's true. While I totally agree that it had the NAME and the blessing of the parent company, it was such a wild departure from 2nd and 3rd that it really didn't feel at all like the same game. That's not to say it was BAD, mind you: I tried it, and i saw it's merits (I still own the core books). I could see myself having fun with it, but it didn't feel like D&D. It didn't scratch that particular itch. That's why I jumped to Pathfinder instead, that was MY 4th edition.

That being said, lots of people didn't like the transition to 3rd. I did, cause I thought stuff made sense: Higher AC was better, your stats got higher as you gained levels, Skill points instead of proficiencies, it all made sense, to me at least.

5th is a great mashup of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sensibilities, and as such, I think it's a better jump than 4th was. You have the proficiencies and low numbers of 2nd; feats, class builds, and spells of 3rd; and character powers, seamless "prestige classing", self healing, and races of 4th.

[Elderand]

To go back to "special moves" for fighters. I think the issue is mainly one of mentality, 5th edition and pretty much every edition before 4th always abstracted combat a great deal so while thing where and are again just an attack, the description of said attack was what made it special.
th with all of it's powers and special moves in a sense ended up with a lot of hand holding, there was even less pressure to think of clever description and awesome stuff because it was already given to you. Whether or not it was a bad thing is left to each to decide.

I think 5th strike a good balance with the fighting styles, feats, battle master archetype and optional rules from the DMG.

Yeah sure a lot of it, like trying to push or maneuver creature bigger than large won't work, but I think that's fair. And it's only a problem if you fight only such creatures, but you shouldn't. With bounded accuracy even weaker monster can remain a challenge in sufficient number. You're not meant to be fighting an elder dragon in every room of the dungeon after all.

[NotALurker]

I don't exactly think that's true. While I totally agree that it had the NAME and the blessing of the parent company, it was such a wild departure from 2nd and 3rd that it really didn't feel at all like the same game. That's not to say it was BAD, mind you: I tried it, and i saw it's merits (I still own the core books). I could see myself having fun with it, but it didn't feel like D&D. It didn't scratch that particular itch. That's why I jumped to Pathfinder instead, that was MY 4th edition.

That being said, lots of people didn't like the transition to 3rd. I did, cause I thought stuff made sense: Higher AC was better, your stats got higher as you gained levels, Skill points instead of proficiencies, it all made sense, to me at least.

5th is a great mashup of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sensibilities, and as such, I think it's a better jump than 4th was. You have the proficiencies and low numbers of 2nd; feats, class builds, and spells of 3rd; and character powers, seamless "prestige classing", self healing, and races of 4th.

your personal feelings do not matter in the least, to YOU it may not feel like D&D but does not mean it is not D&D anymore then the fact the fact it was printed in a book and not sold in a box does.

5e has no 4e in it, nothing that was core to the system, just a few things that look on surface level to be like 4e, but once you start looking at the math you see there is no relation. (like the healing system)

[Gritmonger]

The notion that 4e isn't D&D is so laughable that I just can't even, I just can't.

I don't think it's laughable. 4e turned all classes into roles - striker, defender, etc. So, really, the only thing different was the window dressing. It didn't matter if you were a fighter or paladin or ranger so much as whether you were a striker or defender or controller...

And I didn't feel that was an aid to roleplay.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Must we conduct edition wars in this thread?

@OP: Make sure your fighter knows how shoving and grappling work, and that he can be pretty freeform with how he uses it. One excellent suggestion from these forums is that if players have a tough time figuring grapple/shove into their tactics, have monsters use it on them. Players will get the hang of it pretty quick after that.

If shove/grapple/maneuvers still isn't enough for him, consider giving him a magic items that grant him additional activated abilities or that let him recover Maneuvers during combat or between encounters.

[archaeo]

good ideas

If the player still feels constrained, and if you plan on starting at a higher level, also point him in the direction of several feats that go a long way toward returning the stickiness of 4e Fighters. If they still feel it's constrained, I suggest checking out the DMG section on Action Options on page 271, though in turning some of these options on, you should warn the player that the enemies will also have access to them. Marking is an especially potent ability, and I think you'd be well within your rights as a DM to simply make it a class feature for Fighters, if you'd like.

I would also encourage the Fighter player to think about how 4e Fighter powers work. Generally, it's some multiple of weapon damage plus some number of riders. In general, 5e allows you to do these as part of your attack action, especially with the Battle Master. Smart use of the attack options will go a very long way toward mimicking these powers.

[ChubbyRain]

I don't think it's laughable. 4e turned all classes into roles - striker, defender, etc. So, really, the only thing different was the window dressing. It didn't matter if you were a fighter or paladin or ranger so much as whether you were a striker or defender or controller...

And I didn't feel that was an aid to roleplay.

So does 5e.

All noncasters are strikers (plus partial casters, ranger more so than paladin), all casters are strikers or controllers. Sometimes you can get a secondary leader effect. But no matter what everyone is expected (and has the abilities) to be a striker first.

The roles are still there, alive and well, it is even worse now because if you not a caster you are stuck as a striker. You can try to shove and grapple all you want but some creatures are flat out immune to your so called maneuvers and you essentially are a level 10 character for your life of level 11 - 20.

[Knaight]

D&D is whatever the current right holders say it is, anything else is just what ever you personal think, that applies to and only you.

D&D is several things. One is a brand name, where anything released under it is D&D in a literal sense. Another is the accumulated tradition of things released under that brand name that have a specific feel - and several things released to implement them. 4e is D&D in a literal sense, lots of people felt it conflicted with the tradition*. OSIRIC and Pathfinder aren't D&D in a literal sense, but they're a clear part of the tradition by virtue of being slightly modified clones of D&D editions. Then there are non-D&D games with significant mechanical departures, which still feel enough like D&D to basically be D&D.

*I'd agree with this to a limited extent, though with a caveat that the differences are drastically exaggerated and look pretty small from a broad view perspective of RPGs in general.

[Baptor]

My response will be eerily similar to the advice from the 4e devs on converting 3e characters.

You can try, but the rules are drastically different in this edition. Something in 4e most likely won't have an equivalent in 5e.

While you can make a 5e character that captures the spirit of the 4e character, a true conversion is not plausible.

It is honestly better to wrap up your current 4e campaign first, then roll up new characters in a fresh 5e game.

That's not word for word but it's pretty close.

This said, one of the best things about 5e is is flexibility. Is true that as written there are key elements of 4e not present. But who says you have to play it that way?

The DMG has rules to bring back marking, and you can modify that further if you want. In the play test clerics could heal as a bonus action. You can accomplish that in 5e with a few modifications.

Find out what the players really miss about 4e, then find a way to add that to 5e.

[Kurald Galain]

your personal feelings do not matter in the least, to YOU it may not feel like D&D but does not mean it is not D&D anymore then the fact the fact it was printed in a book and not sold in a box does.

On the contrary, the personal feelings of every potential customer matter, because if the product doesn't "feel" like what he's looking for, then he's unlikely to buy it. Almost all of WOTC's market research for 5E has been focused towards making it "feel" like D&D.

[Madfellow]

All noncasters are strikers (plus partial casters, ranger more so than paladin), all casters are strikers or controllers. Sometimes you can get a secondary leader effect. But no matter what everyone is expected (and has the abilities) to be a striker first.

The roles are still there, alive and well, it is even worse now because if you not a caster you are stuck as a striker. You can try to shove and grapple all you want but some creatures are flat out immune to your so called maneuvers and you essentially are a level 10 character for your life of level 11 - 20.

No. 4e defines strikers as specializing in single target dps. In 5e that's the paladin, hunter ranger, and rogue, three classes out of twelve. Casters in 5e are either controllers, leaders, or somewhere in between. The other noncasters are primarily defenders, with some capacity for controlling, leading, or dps depending on player preference.

The difference between the two is that 4e codified the roles that had already been in the game since ODAD. 5e dispenses with the labels and plays it more loosely.

[NotALurker]

I don't think it's laughable. 4e turned all classes into roles - striker, defender, etc. So, really, the only thing different was the window dressing. It didn't matter if you were a fighter or paladin or ranger so much as whether you were a striker or defender or controller...

And I didn't feel that was an aid to roleplay.

and I felt that it only added to it.

can you see why feelings only matter to you?

roles are part of basic tatics, and are in every version of D&D, most just ignored them so some classes have no roles (cant do anything), and some can do 3 of them at the same time well.


On the contrary, the personal feelings of every potential customer matter, because if the product doesn't "feel" like what he's looking for, then he's unlikely to buy it. Almost all of WOTC's market research for 5E has been focused towards making it "feel" like D&D.

feelings vary so much that there is no point in accounting for them, nor is there a rational basis for them half the time. like people who do not play 4e because it is "too much like an MMORPG" there is no rational basis behind that, so no way to use reason to counteract it.

please do not assume that just because WOTC did something that it was the best thing to do, or even a good idea to do it.

[Gritmonger]

and I felt that it only added to it.

can you see why feelings only matter to you?

roles are part of basic tatics, and are in every version of D&D, most just ignored them so some classes have no roles (cant do anything), and some can do 3 of them at the same time well.


This... sounds very much like an argument for enforced optimization...which is not an aid to roleplay so much as an aid to playing a role, as in a defined slot in a group.

[Bharaeth]

Well, in some contradiction to other posters, our lot have recently converted from 4e to 5e, and many of them had previously transferred from 2e to 3e to 4e. I get the impression that the transition from 3e to 4e (before my time in the group) was particularly difficult, and there is a relief to be going on to 5e, to return to some characters' original themes.

We've not had massive experience with all of our characters in 5e (we have more or less 3 different groups of adventurers in the campaign world), but we will be knocking our lvl 15 and 14 characters to lvls 12 and 13, +2 and +3 magic items are now all +1, and attributes in 4e of 20 and 21 are going to 18 and 19. I'm looking forward to avoiding the attribute arms race, and take on interesting feats, given the opportunity. It looks good on paper at least, but we will see eventually how it plays out. My lvl 14 dragonborn paladin is looking to win when he goes to lvl 13 in 5e, but he started in 4e, and I think 4e failed to capture the classic paladin (I would have wanted to play him in 3.5). Our long-time cleric is getting excited to get Planeshift back. But our 4e super-optimised lvl 14 fighter (multiclassed ranger), who ruled all the combats in 4e is going through all sorts of changes to enter 5e, as he wants to maintain combat options but out of combat options, too - I think he is becoming lvl 4 ranger (hunter), lvl 4 fighter (battlemaster) and lvl 5 barbarian (totem). It will be pretty strange and interesting to see how he plays out.

So, from my group's perspective, take a lvl 10 character in 4e to lvl 8 or so

[ChubbyRain]

No. 4e defines strikers as specializing in single target dps. In 5e that's the paladin, hunter ranger, and rogue, three classes out of twelve. Casters in 5e are either controllers, leaders, or somewhere in between. The other noncasters are primarily defenders, with some capacity for controlling, leading, or dps depending on player preference.

The difference between the two is that 4e codified the roles that had already been in the game since ODAD. 5e dispenses with the labels and plays it more loosely.

No 5e does not. The only difference is that in 4e it spells it out while in 5e it does not. If you think otherwise then you have wool pulled over your eyes.

It is actually harder for a noncasters to fill a role now than it was in 4e, except for striker. You have to wait until about level 8 at the earliest unless you are a V human. And even then you aren't going to be that effective at it.

Just because they stated the role of classes, and mind you they had sub roles, isn't a bad thing.

This isn't a 4e versus 5e thing for me, they both have specific roles that each class fills. The only difference is 4e is actually more flexible about what sub roles you can perform.

The reason it was more flexible was because it didn't try to hide anything and made people aware of the different styles you could use, they gave you options to enhance subroles. If you want a martial controller-esc class that relied on strength you would pick the Brawny Rogue. I find the lack of options in 5e compared to 4e to be laughable. These lack of options is what makes 5e more strict on the roles.

The roles in 5e, full casters are too versitile and are pretty much any.

Barbarian: Striker
Fighter: Striker
Paladin: Striker (has some effective controller spells)
Ranger: Striker
Rogue: Striker
Monk: Striker (has some effective controller abilities)

You can not effectively, without Multiclassing, change these roles. Even the sentinel + polearm is severely lacking due to having problems versus multiple targets since reactions are 1/round.

You can try to break out of these roles but you won't be effective and you will fall behind in striking and fall behind classes that can automatically obtain said roles (full casters).

If I haven't played 4e where I had options for martials this may not be such a bad thing, but I have played them and it is a huge problem. Once you actually play these types of martials you don't go back.

[NotALurker]

This... sounds very much like an argument for enforced optimization...which is not an aid to roleplay so much as an aid to playing a role, as in a defined slot in a group.

I was not saying that I think that the game should have roles, I am saying that every TTRPG ever made with combat has them, it can not be helped. 4e accepted this and worked with it, 3e and 5e work against it and have some classes with no roles so they can not help the group do anything, some with multiple, so they are worth 2 or 3 of other PCs.

[ChubbyRain]

I was not saying that I think that the game should have roles, I am saying that every TTRPG ever made with combat has them, it can not be helped. 4e accepted this and worked with it, 3e and 5e work against it and have some classes with no roles so they can not help the group do anything, some with multiple, so they are worth 2 or 3 of other PCs.

This is a good way to put it. 4e specifically made sure everyone could fulfill their base roles and even gave them secondary roles (with options) to do other things slightly well.

It also tried to make people think differently. Instead of saying "I want to play a fighter" you should think "I want to play a martial striker" then pick your class based on how you want to play. Perhaps your ideal of a martial character was a Fighter, perhaps it was a Rogue, or perhaps it would be till later that you could get what you specifically wanted so you played a Paladin(really good striker BTW even if they were labeled defenders... Which they were good at too).

In 5e you choose your class and then try to fill a role, however you can't actually choose a role since you are pigeonholed (pigeonheld?) into specific roles (unless you are a full caster). If you want to be a non-full caster striker then lucky you, there are tons of those. But if you want anything else then you have two classes to really choose from that allow you to keep up in your main role and branch out and even they don't get that many options while keepimg striking relevant (Paladin and Monk).

It is sad how restrictive 5e is compared to 4e, just by going off the PHBs alone.

I'm a huge fan of parts of 5e, wish they would have upgraded 4e with a lot of them. Maybe 6e will bring us back to a time when my non casters can be awesome and actually have a real level 11-20.

[Knaight]

I was not saying that I think that the game should have roles, I am saying that every TTRPG ever made with combat has them, it can not be helped. 4e accepted this and worked with it, 3e and 5e work against it and have some classes with no roles so they can not help the group do anything, some with multiple, so they are worth 2 or 3 of other PCs.

That's questionable at best. If you mean that characters generally have some sort of preferred combat tactic, then sure - though it's often one of several, and it's very possible that it's the same. The 4e class roles didn't emerge from it being a game with combat though, it emerged from it being a game that was intensely combat focused. D&D in general is not a game set up to play noncombatants, and if playing the way the book suggests you should most of the time will be spent not doing much as one. Plenty of other systems make noncombatants a viable option.

[Gryndle]

I suppose anytime a new edition comes out the edition wars are unavoidable.
I've played every version of the game since Chainmail.

2nd Edition was the most iconic for me, but some of the mechanics were needlessly clunky leading to every group I ever played with having extremely different sets of house rules. so much so that each group may as well have been playing a different edition of the game.

I played through 3rd/3.5 and hated it so much that I dropped out of the groups that used it. When 4E came around I gave it a try and stuck with it from release until January this year when we switched to 5th Ed.

Point is, you can theory craft all you want and whine about this change or that. Until you sit down with your friends and actually play it, then you haven't given it (or any edition) a fair shot.

What we like about the 5E is that the rules don't drive the game, they facilitate it. The grognards in our group like that Vancian casting has returned and fighters can just beat the crap out of things.
The newbies like the simplicity of the system.
Personally, it "feels" more like 2nd Ed with smoother game mechanics and cleaner rules to me. Aside from the obvious multi-classing nod to 3rd.

As for what constitutes D&D, that is purely subjective and beyond the literal "WOTC owns the rights etc." It is up to each of us to decide, but only for ourselves.

For me D&D was this: I get to sit around the table with my closest friends, forget about the crap of the real world and pretend we were bad asses or magic wielding demi-gods in a world where obliterating the things that offended was ok. That was my D&D, doesn't matter what edition it was.

[ChubbyRain]

I suppose anytime a new edition comes out the edition wars are unavoidable.
I've played every version of the game since Chainmail.

2nd Edition was the most iconic for me, but some of the mechanics were needlessly clunky leading to every group I ever played with having extremely different sets of house rules. so much so that each group may as well have been playing a different edition of the game.

I played through 3rd/3.5 and hated it so much that I dropped out of the groups that used it. When 4E came around I gave it a try and stuck with it from release until January this year when we switched to 5th Ed.

Point is, you can theory craft all you want and whine about this change or that. Until you sit down with your friends and actually play it, then you haven't given it (or any edition) a fair shot.

What we like about the 5E is that the rules don't drive the game, they facilitate it. The grognards in our group like that Vancian casting has returned and fighters can just beat the crap out of things.
The newbies like the simplicity of the system.
Personally, it "feels" more like 2nd Ed with smoother game mechanics and cleaner rules to me. Aside from the obvious multi-classing nod to 3rd.

As for what constitutes D&D, that is purely subjective and beyond the literal "WOTC owns the rights etc." It is up to each of us to decide, but only for ourselves.

For me D&D was this: I get to sit around the table with my closest friends, forget about the crap of the real world and pretend we were bad asses or magic wielding demi-gods in a world where obliterating the things that offended was ok. That was my D&D, doesn't matter what edition it was.

See, I don't think this is an edition war. Not to many people have said they hated 5e or thinks that it "isn't D&D".

They just hate parts about 5e and wish they didn't half ass some parts of it.

So no, I haven't really seen any real edition waring going on. Disagreeing with parts of an edition and saying " this edition did it better" or "this is how they should ave done it" isnt really edition waring.

It is called having a discussion and comparing an edition to another.

Most people I've seen on this forum (that visit the 5e section) seem to like the core of 5e even if their favorite game is not 5e.

Using a term like edition waring seems very wrong, go look at the old 3e vs 4e debates on [pick a forum] and look at these threads. No, this isn't edition waring. You actually have to have one specific side to wage war, most people that I've seen don't have one specific side even if 5e isn't their favorite.

[Knaight]

See, I don't think this is an edition war. Not to many people have said they hated 5e or thinks that it "isn't D&D".

They just hate parts about 5e and wish they didn't half ass some parts of it.

Even "hate parts about 5e" is a bit strong. I consider some of the subsystems poorly implemented. Every RPG system has things it does well and things it does poorly, and acknowledging the things a system does poorly by no means constituted edition warring. Every system is flawed, and while how deeply they are flawed varies, a lot of the times it's more a matter of where the flaws are than anything else, along with how they interact with things that are very preference based (e.g. the class system, which is by no means a flaw, but is something that makes some people, myself included, substantially less likely to play D&D). It's good to understand the system, and to understand what you want out of a system, so you can pick one from an informed position.

[NotALurker]

That's questionable at best. If you mean that characters generally have some sort of preferred combat tactic, then sure - though it's often one of several, and it's very possible that it's the same. The 4e class roles didn't emerge from it being a game with combat though, it emerged from it being a game that was intensely combat focused. D&D in general is not a game set up to play noncombatants, and if playing the way the book suggests you should most of the time will be spent not doing much as one. Plenty of other systems make noncombatants a viable option.

roles only apply to combat, I am not saying that you should only do combat, but when talking about anything else roles do not matter.

when your in combat there are only so many things that you can do to help your side win

striker: damage the other side

controller: try and limit the options of the other side, so they can not hurt your side as badly

defender (really a sub-set of controller): make yourself a target so that you are hurt instead of your allies becuase you can take it easier then they can.

leader: heal and buff your side to make sure your side can survive the fight, and be more effective.

roles are emergent in any combat system, some will make some useless, a system with high damage and low health will mean strikers will be more important then controllers for example. but everything useful you can do in combat fits in one category.

[Gritmonger]

roles only apply to combat, I am not saying that you should only do combat, but when talking about anything else roles do not matter.

when your in combat there are only so many things that you can do to help your side win

striker: damage the other side

controller: try and limit the options of the other side, so they can not hurt your side as badly

defender (really a sub-set of controller): make yourself a target so that you are hurt instead of your allies becuase you can take it easier then they can.

leader: heal and buff your side to make sure your side can survive the fight, and be more effective.

roles are emergent in any combat system, some will make some useless, a system with high damage and low health will mean strikers will be more important then controllers for example. but everything useful you can do in combat fits in one category.

...I'd have to disagree that "roles are emergent in any combat system" - particularly these roles. It's become emergent in MMO's and the like where balance was crucial and the focus was combat.

In a roleplaying game, you can do non-combat things to avoid, delay, change, modify or otherwise twist combat that aren't inherent in any of those roles.

There were any number of times my "striker" (what in old Champions system was a Martial Artist) very often was called "button pusher" because, under the old Champion system everybody had flaws and bonds that were important to them, and because of the way I played I very often ended up with enemy focus by using the "free" talking action every round and inevitably tweaking enemies with little hits to their psychological factors...

None of that was encoded in the system - I, as a roleplayer, simply was lucky or adept at teasing out enemy flaws. But I was on paper what you'd call a "Striker." Was I a defender, drawing enemy focus then, through roleplay? Was I a controller, making the enemy behave in a way I preferred rather than a way they wished?

Nope - I was a martial artist with a fixation about self destruction because he'd sassed his grandfather and ended up crippling him. Roleplaying, not playing the role. If I sat and stewed in my optimized role for every combat, I would not have been nearly as effective.

[NotALurker]

...I'd have to disagree that "roles are emergent in any combat system" - particularly these roles. It's become emergent in MMO's and the like where balance was crucial and the focus was combat.

In a roleplaying game, you can do non-combat things to avoid, delay, change, modify or otherwise twist combat that aren't inherent in any of those roles.

There were any number of times my "striker" (what in old Champions system was a Martial Artist) very often was called "button pusher" because, under the old Champion system everybody had flaws and bonds that were important to them, and because of the way I played I very often ended up with enemy focus by using the "free" talking action every round and inevitably tweaking enemies with little hits to their psychological factors...

None of that was encoded in the system - I, as a roleplayer, simply was lucky or adept at teasing out enemy flaws. But I was on paper what you'd call a "Striker." Was I a defender, drawing enemy focus then, through roleplay? Was I a controller, making the enemy behave in a way I preferred rather than a way they wished?

Nope - I was a martial artist with a fixation about self destruction because he'd sassed his grandfather and ended up crippling him. Roleplaying, not playing the role. If I sat and stewed in my optimized role for every combat, I would not have been nearly as effective.

I am not talking about non-combat for the sake of this discussion non-combat might as well not exist. Roles are emergent in combat, that is the only place they matter.

your character fluff may be that your "a martial artist with a fixation about self destruction because he'd sassed his grandfather and ended up crippling him" but that does not matter, I am talking about roles in the system. not how you chose to fluff them for your personal characters.

and yes every RPG character in combat that helps the party fits in at least one of those boxes. The reason why it matters is that if your system is made badly there are classes that do not fill a box (like the fighter who can only ever be a striker, but is not as good as other classes at it) or the wizard (who can be a striker and a controller at the same time and do both better then non-casters even if they are build around it)

[ChubbyRain]

Even "hate parts about 5e" is a bit strong. I consider some of the subsystems poorly implemented. Every RPG system has things it does well and things it does poorly, and acknowledging the things a system does poorly by no means constituted edition warring. Every system is flawed, and while how deeply they are flawed varies, a lot of the times it's more a matter of where the flaws are than anything else, along with how they interact with things that are very preference based (e.g. the class system, which is by no means a flaw, but is something that makes some people, myself included, substantially less likely to play D&D). It's good to understand the system, and to understand what you want out of a system, so you can pick one from an informed position.

You know, as soon as I posted that I felt "hate" was too strong but I was too lazy to change it.

Dislike would have been the better word.

[arcane_asp]

Wow, quite a few posts over the weekend for this thread :smalleek:

We have another session tonight, from what I've read on here, it's going to be a good idea to keep the magic weapons toned down somewhat, and make sure the fighter types know all their options in combat.

I'm kind of worries about he casters dominating, which is the inverse of my experience with 4e.

Would like to add, I didn't really play 3e at all so the leap between 2e and 4e was even larger for me. My take on it was that 4e was more aimed at a generation familiar with the features and style of video game RPG's, and provided a similar experience (at least in combat). It had a nice feel to it and we all enjoyed it for what it was.

I do feel that 5e has returned to its roots somewhat though, but I guess I'm still new to the edition...

[Madfellow]

I'm kind of worries about he casters dominating, which is the inverse of my experience with 4e.

Don't be. Some people have been ringing alarm bells over caster domination, but it's not something to worry about. I've been running a campaign for months now with an evenly mixed party. The party sorcerer loves his burn spells and his save-or-suck spells, but the end result of his casting them is never any different than if the rest of the party had just kept on wailing on the enemy. They seem strong, but that's because all combat in 5th is like a game of rocket tag; very quick and very deadly, strongly favoring the side that gets the jump on their foes. Sometimes the fight is over before it even begins.

The party rogue's damage output is crazy high, and when she scores a crit she can one-shot anything the party encounters. The party cleric built his character as a dedicated healbot, and on his watch not a single PC has died yet. The party fighter serves as a good meat shield, but unfortunately she keeps forgetting to use her Action Surge ability (the fighter's strongest ability).

[Kryx]

We have another session tonight, from what I've read on here, it's going to be a good idea to keep the magic weapons toned down somewhat, and make sure the fighter types know all their options in combat.
I would still suggest removing any bonuses to the item and keeping the extras of the items.

For instance if he had a +3 flaming sword give him a flaming sword. If you're worried he wont like the item then make it interesting in another way. +Xs aren't interesting and change the math too much imo.

As I said earlier 4e expected the bonuses, in 5e by giving them a magic item you're effectively giving your players an additional 5-15% chance to hit more than the system expect.

[ChubbyRain]

Wow, quite a few posts over the weekend for this thread :smalleek:

We have another session tonight, from what I've read on here, it's going to be a good idea to keep the magic weapons toned down somewhat, and make sure the fighter types know all their options in combat.

I'm kind of worries about he casters dominating, which is the inverse of my experience with 4e.

Would like to add, I didn't really play 3e at all so the leap between 2e and 4e was even larger for me. My take on it was that 4e was more aimed at a generation familiar with the features and style of video game RPG's, and provided a similar experience (at least in combat). It had a nice feel to it and we all enjoyed it for what it was.

I do feel that 5e has returned to its roots somewhat though, but I guess I'm still new to the edition...

Casters can definitely dominate if they are built for it.

They aren't the same as the 3e casters but they can still dominate a game if built for it. This mostly comes online as the noncasters stop gaining true levels and start gaining false levels (levels 9-20 ish).

Casters start accumulating more and more power while still having lower power options to fall back on. Plus a lot of casters at this point (bard and cleric especially) have viable cantrips and weapon options.

The parallel to 3e is uncanny.

Noncasters can only even be strikers in combat. That is all they get. However as a caster if you know you are hu ting goblins that day you can have your anti-goblin spell ready and waiting (spell in which goes against the goblin's bad saves). You can control the battlefield, be a striker, be a leader (bard/cleric mostly on this one), or be a defender.

You simply don't get that option, ever, if you are not a full caster. Sentinel + Polearm master looks nice but you get 1 reaction/round and all it really gives you is another way to deal damage.

So while the huge flexibility of casters got taken away (prepare and know a ton of spells usable all day) the casters still have enough variety and enough slots to dominate like they used to.

Anyone who says otherwise has not tried to do this. I've played and ran multiole games where the intent was to make the best noncasters and casters to see this very point. Partial casters like the monk/ranger/paladin did better than the noncasters but the casters could be built to really dominate.

[Madfellow]

Noncasters can only even be strikers in combat.


Stop saying that, because it's incorrect.



However as a caster if you know you are hunting goblins that day you can have your anti-goblin spell ready and waiting (spell in which goes against the goblin's bad saves). You can control the battlefield, be a striker, be a leader (bard/cleric mostly on this one), or be a defender.


Sure, if you know 100% for a fact that you are definitely fighting goblins and nothing but goblins all day. Unless your DM is an idiot, that's never going to happen.



You simply don't get that option, ever, if you are not a full caster. Sentinel + Polearm master looks nice but you get 1 reaction/round and all it really gives you is another way to deal damage.


That's why there are barbarian totem abilities, battlemaster maneuvers, monk ki manipulation, rogue combat tricks, shoving, grappling, and the DMG expanded combat rules. If you want to play a martial character who has actual options in combat other than straight damage, all you need is a brain.



Anyone who says otherwise has not tried to do this.


I have, actually. I have a perfect example for you. I ran the first adventure of the Rise of Tiamat module for two different groups. One group was an even mix (fighter, rogue, cleric, sorcerer), and the other was all wizards. The adventure sends the party into an iceberg that serves as a white dragon's lair. One can reasonably expect to encounter at least one dragon and likely a number of kobold servants. However, this particular dragon also has a number of trolls in his service. The mixed party got ambushed by a pair of trolls and was able to easily handle them in about three turns. The all-wizard party got the drop on those same two trolls and got wiped out.

[Doug Lampert]

Stop saying that, because it's incorrect.



Sure, if you know 100% for a fact that you are definitely fighting goblins and nothing but goblins all day. Unless your DM is an idiot, that's never going to happen.

Stop saying that, because it's incorrect.

If you know you will fight goblins ONCE, you have your anti-goblin spell prepared, because at level 1 you have 4+ spells prepared and can spam any one of the four with every available slot (all two of them). The significant limit is slots, not spells prepared.

At level 10 you have 15 spells prepared, so about 3 of each level, and you can spam every single slot of the level prepared or higher (all 15 available slots), again, the significant limit is slots, not spells prepared.

Having an antigoblin spell prepared costs effectively nothing in 5th edition and is unlikely to significantly impact your ability to deal with other things.

[Madfellow]

If you know you will fight goblins ONCE, you have your anti-goblin spell prepared, because at level 1 you have 4+ spells prepared and can spam any one of the four with every available slot (all two of them). The significant limit is slots, not spells prepared.

At level 10 you have 15 spells prepared, so about 3 of each level, and you can spam every single slot of the level prepared or higher (all 15 available slots), again, the significant limit is slots, not spells prepared.

Having an antigoblin spell prepared costs effectively nothing in 5th edition and is unlikely to significantly impact your ability to deal with other things.

It doesn't matter what level your wizard is; he can't prepare for everything. Before long, he's going to encounter something he didn't prepare for, and he will be screwed. And every spell he casts is a tax on his daily resources; casters burn through spell slots very quickly in 5th. Non-casters don't have those problems, because they're equally effective in all situations and at all times.

Furthermore, there are plenty of players who don't want to keep track of spells prepared and spells cast. The system should not force them to use a system that they find tedious. Non-casters are simpler than casters, but just as effective. The complexity is there for those who want it, but it is not forced on anyone. Simplicity is a healthy thing for the game to have, because it brings more people in.

[Doug Lampert]

It doesn't matter what level your wizard is; he can't prepare for everything. Before long, he's going to encounter something he didn't prepare for, and he will be screwed. And every spell he casts is a tax on his daily resources; casters burn through spell slots very quickly in 5th. Non-casters don't have those problems, because they're equally effective in all situations and at all times.

Furthermore, there are plenty of players who don't want to keep track of spells prepared and spells cast. The system should not force them to use a system that they find tedious. Non-casters are simpler than casters, but just as effective. The complexity is there for those who want it, but it is not forced on anyone. Simplicity is a healthy thing for the game to have, because it brings more people in.

He can prepare the vast majority of his spells as generally useful stuff.

By level 20 he has 20 spells from level, 5 from ability, and 4 from his high level specials, for 29 prepared spells, claiming that a prepared spell is a high cost is nonsensical, at pretty well every level he prepares more spells prepared than he can actually cast.

He can prepare for all sorts of weird contingencies and it costs him NOT ONE THING as far as the spells he actually expects to cast, because he can also still prepare every one of them, it just costs hims some OTHER corner contingency spell.

YOU made the claim that you could only prepare a spell for goblins if

Noncasters can only even be strikers in combat. That is all they get. However as a caster if you know you are hu ting goblins that day you can have your anti-goblin spell ready and waiting (spell in which goes against the goblin's bad saves). You can control the battlefield, be a striker, be a leader (bard/cleric mostly on this one), or be a defender.Sure, if you know 100% for a fact that you are definitely fighting goblins and nothing but goblins all day.

That's not a claim of a trivial resource drain of something you have in surplus, that to prepare a SINGLE SPELL to attack a goblin's weak save REQUIRES that you be 100% sure that you are fighting goblins and nothing but goblins all day.

This claim is blatant and total nonsense.

[Madfellow]

Claiming that a prepared spell is a high cost is nonsensical.

I never made such a claim. I said spells CAST are a tax on daily resources, not spells PREPARED.


YOU made the claim that you could only prepare a spell for goblins if you're 100% sure that you are fighting goblins and nothing but goblins all day.

I never made that claim either. ChubbyRain claimed that prepared casters can prepare for any eventuality and render it trivial. I refuted him, claiming that casters can't prepare for every eventuality simultaneously, and that whatever they don't prepare for will cause them problems.

Please read a little more carefully, and try not to get so worked up.

[NotALurker]

It doesn't matter what level your wizard is; he can't prepare for everything. Before long, he's going to encounter something he didn't prepare for, and he will be screwed. And every spell he casts is a tax on his daily resources; casters burn through spell slots very quickly in 5th. Non-casters don't have those problems, because they're equally effective in all situations and at all times.

Furthermore, there are plenty of players who don't want to keep track of spells prepared and spells cast. The system should not force them to use a system that they find tedious. Non-casters are simpler than casters, but just as effective. The complexity is there for those who want it, but it is not forced on anyone. Simplicity is a healthy thing for the game to have, because it brings more people in.

there is no reason you can not have middle ground between over complicated but overpowered and dead simple and very undepowered.

In fact there is no reason a good game would even link complexity and power. nor that it would link power source to power to role.

[Madfellow]

In fact there is no reason a good game would even link complexity and power. nor that it would link power source to power to role.

Then I guess it's a good thing 5e doesn't do that.

[NotALurker]

Then I guess it's a good thing 5e doesn't do that.

so your saying that casters are not objectively better then non-casters? that a fighter is just as complex and tactical as a wizard?

hmm you must have a different version of 5e then me.

[Madfellow]

so your saying that casters are not objectively better then non-casters? that a fighter is just as complex and tactical as a wizard?

Less complex, yes, but that doesn't make it any less tactical or powerful. Complexity is not some magical thing that makes everything better. In fact, usually the opposite is true. Why do you think people are enjoying 5e so much?

[ChubbyRain]

What I originally said, on this or the other very similar thread, is that casters could become any sort of character they want while noncasters can only ever be strikers. Effectively speaking, you can make a 8 Int EK and suck as casting offensive spells if you want.

But going with the anti-goblin spell thing I said. What people forget is that anti-goblin spell is already a ton of other thing's anti-whatever spell. Goblins suck at X, well a lot of other things do too. You don't need to prepare 20 different spela a day in order to be effective, you really only need three or four. After that it is all gravey.

The game is biased toward casters, well toward having options. If you have options then you do better.

Noncasters/low casters (fighter, barbarian, and rogue) < Partial casters (monk, paladin, ranger) < Full Casters (all others).

This isn't a huge issue when they are roughly in the same power bracket, levels 1-8 or whatever, but once you get above that then the difference is really clear.

If people actually played higher level games they may notice this kind of stuff.

[NotALurker]

Less complex, yes, but that doesn't make it any less tactical or powerful. Complexity is not some magical thing that makes everything better. In fact, usually the opposite is true. Why do you think people are enjoying 5e so much?

Complexity does not HAVE to make class more powerful, nor SHOULD it but in 5e's case it does. at level 10 the only thing a figher can do is swing his weapon at things, a wizard has a large bag of tricks, all of which are better then the fighters single attack.



A level 10 wizard is objectively better then a level 10 fighter most every situation. In fact is is blatant meta gaming to even have a non caster in your party past a certain point.
If your looking for someone to be in your party why would you ever want a fighter or a rogue when you can have a wizard or a cleric? if you have no other options you MAY get a non-caster, but its hard to see why they would get a full share when they can never pull their own weight.

also do not assume that just because an unspecified number of people like something that it is well made or even competently made.

[Madfellow]

If you're looking for someone to be in your party why would you ever want a fighter or a rogue when you can have a wizard or a cleric?

Experience, that's why. Experience has demonstrated that a party consisting entirely of casters is actually a terrible idea. See the trolls example I posted a page or two ago. A party of wizards got wiped by a pair of trolls, which a balanced party was able to take care of easily.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

A level 10 wizard is objectively better then a level 10 fighter most every situation. In fact is is blatant meta gaming to even have a non caster in your party past a certain point.
In an ideal world, wizards wreck everything. But all it takes is one good initiative roll by the DM and you have a bunch of dying wizards.

Martials are pretty good at not having that happen to them.

Also Monks are not partial casters.

[ChubbyRain]

In an ideal world, wizards wreck everything. But all it takes is one good initiative roll by the DM and you have a bunch of dying wizards.

Martials are pretty good at not having that happen to them.

Also Monks are not partial casters.

Monks are certainly partial casters.

Ki is very much a casting ability. It allows them to modify their base abilities and is limited. It is the same class feature that allows them to power the spells that their subcladses get (2/3). The base monk is just as much of a partial caster as a paladin or ranger. The biggest difference is that they effect themselves with their magical ki stuff.

Ki is called "mystic energy" in the phb. How is that not magic?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks likes a duck, and is called a duck... Then it is a duck.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Monks are not partial casters. They don't get spells, except for their subclass which specifically gets spells. And it's widely considered not at all comparable to a real caster owing to its severe limitations on spell choice.

Monks have a resource system. So do Battlemasters and Barbarians. Having a resource system doesn't make you a caster. What makes casters casters is casting spells.

Furthermore, you explicitly outline that casters are supreme because they have choice. Monks do not have choice. They cannot shape themselves to the situation. They have a set toolbox and must handle all situations with that toolbox, nice as it is.

[Gritmonger]

Monks are not partial casters. They don't get spells, except for their subclass which specifically gets spells. And it's widely considered not at all comparable to a real caster owing to its severe limitations on spell choice.

Monks have a resource system. So do Battlemasters and Barbarians. Having a resource system doesn't make you a caster. What makes casters casters is casting spells.

I'm getting more and more the "no true Scotsman" feel from this (any example with a non-fighter ability used as an example discounted due to "essentially being a caster") - and this will come down to a straight Fighter doesn't have as many options as in 4th, when the one guy I recall we had that did play a straight fighter even then had the complaint that he never had a Daily.

[ChubbyRain]

Monks are not partial casters. They don't get spells, except for their subclass which specifically gets spells. And it's widely considered not at all comparable to a real caster owing to its severe limitations on spell choice.

Monks have a resource system. So do Battlemasters and Barbarians. Having a resource system doesn't make you a caster. What makes casters casters is casting spells.

Furthermore, you explicitly outline that casters are supreme because they have choice. Monks do not have choice. They cannot shape themselves to the situation. They have a set toolbox and must handle all situations with that toolbox, nice as it is.

Mystic Energy... Quack, quack, quack.


I'm getting more and more the "no true Scotsman" feel from this (any example with a non-fighter ability used as an example discounted due to "essentially being a caster") - and this will come down to a straight Fighter doesn't have as many options as in 4th, when the one guy I recall we had that did play a straight fighter even then had the complaint that he never had a Daily.

Was he playing 4e or 4e Essentials? The esse trials fighter was just god awful compared to the 4e fighter. The essentials fighter had no dailies and I'm not sure they had encounter powers.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I'm confused. Are casters overpowered because of game mechanics, or because their fluff says 'mystic energy'?

[ChubbyRain]

I'm confused. Are casters overpowered because of game mechanics, or because their fluff says 'mystic energy'?

What are you even talking about? Being overpowered doesn't make you a caster or partial caster.

Using mystic energy, arcane energy, or divine energy to produce effects makes you a caster in some regard. Be it a full or partial caster. The monk gets this mystic energy from their base class. The base class is a partial caster becaus the class doesn't primarily focus on their casting ability. Their casting ability supplements their non casting abilities.

Again, if it looks, walks, quacks, and is called a duck... Then it is a duck.

Being OP has nothing to do with if you are a caster or not, I'm not sure why one wous think Power has anything to do with if you are a caster or partial caster. The EK is one of the worst partial casters in the game (MAD/Evoc and Abj specialty) but the EK is still a partial caster.

[VeliciaL]

What are you even talking about? Being overpowered doesn't make you a caster or partial caster.

Using mystic energy, arcane energy, or divine energy to produce effects makes you a caster in some regard. Be it a full or partial caster. The monk gets this mystic energy from their base class. The base class is a partial caster becaus the class doesn't primarily focus on their casting ability. Their casting ability supplements their non casting abilities.

Again, if it looks, walks, quacks, and is called a duck... Then it is a duck.

Being OP has nothing to do with if you are a caster or not, I'm not sure why one wous think Power has anything to do with if you are a caster or partial caster. The EK is one of the worst partial casters in the game (MAD/Evoc and Abj specialty) but the EK is still a partial caster.

Monks aren't spellcasters - what "caster" is short-hand for - because they don't cast spells. Outside of a specific subclass, that is.

[NotALurker]

Experience, that's why. Experience has demonstrated that a party consisting entirely of casters is actually a terrible idea. See the trolls example I posted a page or two ago. A party of wizards got wiped by a pair of trolls, which a balanced party was able to take care of easily.

that is why you have casters, then some cheap henchmen who you can pay almost nothing, but provide 90% of advantages of a fighter. there is very little reason to have a level 10 fighter as a full partner when you can have 5 level 1 peasants and pay then a flat low wage (low for you, for them it could be 10x what they could earn doing anything else)


also the higher you go the easier it becomes to have a full party of casters even without any henchmen. past a certain point a wizard or druid becomes a better tank then a fighter because of summons and such

[Madfellow]

that is why you have casters, then some cheap henchmen who you can pay almost nothing, but provide 90% of advantages of a fighter. there is very little reason to have a level 10 fighter as a full partner when you can have 5 level 1 peasants and pay then a flat low wage (low for you, for them it could be 10x what they could earn doing anything else)


also the higher you go the easier it becomes to have a full party of casters even without any henchmen. past a certain point a wizard or druid becomes a better tank then a fighter because of summons and such

They were level 8, by the way. And I'd rather have level 8 fighters and rogues with personalities than a squad of level 1 red shirts.

[NotALurker]

They were level 8, by the way. And I'd rather have level 8 fighters and rogues with personalities than a squad of level 1 red shirts.

what about in character? that is one of the problems with the caster-noncaster divide. what is your in character reason for wanting one fighter rather then 5 or 6 peasants? the peasants would be cheaper, and would be more helpful.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Why send 4 guys instead of an army for anything?

[Madfellow]

what about in character? that is one of the problems with the caster-noncaster divide. what is your in character reason for wanting one fighter rather then 5 or 6 peasants? the peasants would be cheaper, and would be more helpful.

If you want to play a game about hiring a bunch of mercenary cannon fodder to do your adventuring for you, then you want to play ACKS, not DnD.

[obryn]

If you want to play a game about hiring a bunch of mercenary cannon fodder to do your adventuring for you, then you want to play ACKS, not DnD.
...says someone who apparently never played or has forgotten D&D 0e through D&D 2e... :smallbiggrin:

[NotALurker]

Why send 4 guys instead of an army for anything?

cost, 4 peasants would cost very little. The problem is that thinks to how things do not scale with level 4 low level guys are not only better but cheaper then one guy of your level.


If you want to play a game about hiring a bunch of mercenary cannon fodder to do your adventuring for you, then you want to play ACKS, not DnD.

that is meta gaming. I asked for your in character justification for paying more gold to get one fighter even though he would be less effective.

[Vogonjeltz]

Haha - you guys may be amused to know that the player who is the Wizard character told me that "he seems different to the fighters now, like a proper wizard". The player who is the fighter told me he didn't like the system as it felt like his fighter couldn't do any 'special moves' anymore.

This may take some time to adjust, but 2/3 of the group have already perceived the differences and seem to take it positively. 5e may be the right move after all

Point out the sections in the PHB Combat Chapter on Improvising Actions and Contests. Your Fighter can basically do anything they want, they just have to describe it. Do they want to bum rush that guy off a cliff? It's supported. Tackle an enemy and choke them out? supported. Climb up a dragon and gouge it's eyes out? Totally supported!

A Fighter's options in combat are pretty much imagination limited. (Which is to say, unlimited).


The roles in 5e, full casters are too versitile and are pretty much any.

Barbarian: Striker
Fighter: Striker
Paladin: Striker (has some effective controller spells)
Ranger: Striker
Rogue: Striker
Monk: Striker (has some effective controller abilities)

You can not effectively, without Multiclassing, change these roles. Even the sentinel + polearm is severely lacking due to having problems versus multiple targets since reactions are 1/round.

Your perception of class roles in the terms of Striker, Controller, Defender reflect typical perceptions of roles in MUDs and MMOs (Tank, Blaster, Healer), which is the basis of the charge that 4th resembled an MMO, which historically is not what D&D was. Hence, 4th edition did not have the feeling of past D&D, and that was viewed as unwelcome. Which is pretty much exactly why 4th was shelved and we have 5th edition.

As for your position that a Fighter is a striker (dps, blaster, damage dealer) and nothing else, I don't think that accurately reflects the capabilities of the Battlemaster, Champion, or Eldritch Knight, nor does it reflect the capabilities from feats OR straight up combat options. Indeed, the Fighter has access to the Protection Fighting Style, which seems like the most obvious standout for defending another character (as a reaction no less).

[obryn]

Point out the sections in the PHB Combat Chapter on Improvising Actions and Contests. Your Fighter can basically do anything they want, they just have to describe it. Do they want to bum rush that guy off a cliff? It's supported. Tackle an enemy and choke them out? supported. Climb up a dragon and gouge it's eyes out? Totally supported!

A Fighter's options in combat are pretty much imagination limited. (Which is to say, unlimited).

The ability to improvise doesn't obviate the need for fiat abilities. Everyone can improvise. Fiat abilities add to that.

[Oscredwin]

The ability to improvise doesn't obviate the need for fiat abilities. Everyone can improvise. Fiat abilities add to that.

Casters lack the ability to improvise with magic the way that fighters do with STR. I've been feeling the pain of this since 2nd ed, wanting to do things very close to what my spells do, but not quite what's in the description (eg sculpt a fireball to burn off some goo from the party members without hurting anyone, while out of combat).

[NotALurker]

Point out the sections in the PHB Combat Chapter on Improvising Actions and Contests. Your Fighter can basically do anything they want, they just have to describe it. Do they want to bum rush that guy off a cliff? It's supported. Tackle an enemy and choke them out? supported. Climb up a dragon and gouge it's eyes out? Totally supported!

A Fighter's options in combat are pretty much imagination limited. (Which is to say, unlimited).

great, so I get to play a guessing game for what my DM will allow. while casters know when they make their character what they can do.

there is no reason why some classes should have no real option but to ask the DM to let them houserule in cool things for them to do, and other classes have all the options they need in the core books.



Your perception of class roles in the terms of Striker, Controller, Defender reflect typical perceptions of roles in MUDs and MMOs (Tank, Blaster, Healer), which is the basis of the charge that 4th resembled an MMO, which historically is not what D&D was. Hence, 4th edition did not have the feeling of past D&D, and that was viewed as unwelcome. Which is pretty much exactly why 4th was shelved and we have 5th edition.

As for your position that a Fighter is a striker (dps, blaster, damage dealer) and nothing else, I don't think that accurately reflects the capabilities of the Battlemaster, Champion, or Eldritch Knight, nor does it reflect the capabilities from feats OR straight up combat options. Indeed, the Fighter has access to the Protection Fighting Style, which seems like the most obvious standout for defending another character (as a reaction no less).

you personalty did not think 4e felt like D&D, how does that matter to anyone but you? it was a successful game that outsold pathfinder for the entire time they both were putting out new material (with the exception of essentials, which broke the assumptions of 4e classes)

your not a defender if the best you can do is sorta annoy one guy per round, you need to be able to lay down control equal to a wizard, even if its more limited in area.

also the roles are not something that MMO's invented nor somthing that 4e invented they are emergent from basic tactics, every version of D&D has them.


Casters lack the ability to improvise with magic the way that fighters do with STR. I've been feeling the pain of this since 2nd ed, wanting to do things very close to what my spells do, but not quite what's in the description (eg sculpt a fireball to burn off some goo from the party members without hurting anyone, while out of combat).
ummm why? you can say "I am going to cast my fireball carefully, so it does just enough damage to get the goo off, but not enough to hurt anyone" just as easily as a fighter can say "I am going to try and bull rush this guy into the wall, then strike at the guys next to him"

everyone can imporvise equaly, its just that fighters HAVE to if they want to do anything more then "I hit him with my sword"

[Gritmonger]

<snip>
ummm why? you can say "I am going to cast my fireball carefully, so it does just enough damage to get the goo off, but not enough to hurt anyone" ...

Hehehe... I could just see trying this with one of my DM's :
"Okay, you very carefully fill the corridor with an exploding thirty-foot-diameter ball of flame"

[Kurald Galain]

you personalty did not think 4e felt like D&D, how does that matter to anyone but you? it was a successful game that outsold pathfinder for the entire time they both were putting out new material (with the exception of essentials, which broke the assumptions of 4e classes)

The facts show otherwise.
http://www.awesomedice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dd-editions-vs-pathfinder-trend.jpg (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column/page20&p=5765391#post5765391)

[obryn]

The facts show otherwise.
http://www.awesomedice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dd-editions-vs-pathfinder-trend.jpg (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column/page20&p=5765391#post5765391)Yeah, the Nissan Pathfinder skews numbers along with people just searching for D&D instead of specifically D&D 4e since it was D&D at the time. :smallbiggrin:

But seriously why the heck is this still a conversation.

[NotALurker]

The facts show otherwise.
http://www.awesomedice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dd-editions-vs-pathfinder-trend.jpg (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column/page20&p=5765391#post5765391)

.....really? that makes no sense.

First of all pathfinder means alot of things besides pathfinder the RPG. how did you separate people looking for information on the movie pathfinder, from people looking for info on a pathfinder car from people looking for info on the RPG?

Secondly there is no reason to believe that a higher number of searches means that the game is more popular. It is just as possible that because pathfinder has many many more holes in the system then 4e that more people goggle it on how to fix it. or any number of other reasons to not blindly assume that correlation equals causation.


Hehehe... I could just see trying this with one of my DM's :
"Okay, you very carefully fill the corridor with an exploding thirty-foot-diameter ball of flame"

makes exactly as much sense as anything the fighter would improvise.

[georgie_leech]

Yeah, the Nissan Pathfinder skews numbers along with people just searching for D&D instead of specifically D&D 4e since it was D&D at the time. :smallbiggrin:

But seriously why the heck is this still a conversation.

Because Edition Wars.®

[themaque]

what about in character? that is one of the problems with the caster-noncaster divide. what is your in character reason for wanting one fighter rather then 5 or 6 peasants? the peasants would be cheaper, and would be more helpful.

Why would I want a highly trained skilled mercenary veteran of various different skirmish campaigns vs the Duket brothers out hoping to earn a little beer money and likely to run at the first sign of trouble?

You're right. No reason at all.

[archaeo]

But seriously why the heck is this still a conversation.

Somebody already said "Because Edition Wars," but seriously, it's just rank tribalism that can be entirely chalked up to the enormous mental/emotional/sometimes monetary investment players make in their TRPG of choice, and being wrong about their TRPG of choice is cognitive dissonance that cannot possibly be countenanced, etc., until you're shouting back and forth about "number of hits on Google in Q1 2014" or "book sales derived from Amazon ranking" and other business nonsense nobody really needs to care about unless they own Hasbro stock.

It's really too bad online interactions lack anything like the mirror behind the liquor at a bar; one of the best ways to get an angry person to calm down is to make them see themselves looking like a crazy person.

[themaque]

It's really too bad online interactions lack anything like the mirror behind the liquor at a bar; one of the best ways to get an angry person to calm down is to make them see themselves looking like a crazy person.

I'm not a crazy person. I'm Defending LOGIC!

https://www.mattcutts.com/images/duty_calls.png

Seriously though, while Edition wars ARE silly. it's painful when YOUR edition makes its way to the dinosaurs.

Yes, you can still play, but knowing it's no longer supported, getting new players will be harder and harder, and to hear people bad mouthing something so close to you. It can be an easy trap to fall into. Why would they leave YOUR edition for.... THIS.

[silveralen]

The ability to improvise doesn't obviate the need for fiat abilities. Everyone can improvise. Fiat abilities add to that.

We've been over this. Fighter has some fiat but is improvisation heavy. Wizard has some improvisation but is fiat heavy. Both have access to the other, but each favors one approach.

Yes, the skill contest system favors fighter. One skill contest per attack is going to be weighted towards the guy with 2-4 attacks per turn over the guy with one. He uses that system better than the wizard, just as barbarian and rogue do (rogue for higher skill check totals, barbarian for a little of both). It's the difference between an eldritch knight and a wizard.

If you really focus on fiat abilities, other options exist. Fighter actually isn't that bad in EK/BM format, certainly more than champion or barbarian. Paladin and ranger take it a step further, but they can't use these abilities that often, while monk has lower key abilities they can use a great deal, open hand monk probably wins for most powerful short rest abilities in 5e (over warlock, and yes I'll argue this point).

[Knaight]

Seriously though, while Edition wars ARE silly. it's painful when YOUR edition makes its way to the dinosaurs.

Yes, you can still play, but knowing it's no longer supported, getting new players will be harder and harder, and to hear people bad mouthing something so close to you. It can be an easy trap to fall into. Why would they leave YOUR edition for.... THIS.

I'm finding limited sympathy here for D&D players complaining about it being hard finding new players. I mean, really. Yes, it's harder to acquire printed books, but that's about it. It's not like a constant stream of support is even anywhere necessary; plenty of non-D&D games get by with their one rulebook and no splats.

[NotALurker]

Why would I want a highly trained skilled mercenary veteran of various different skirmish campaigns vs the Duket brothers out hoping to earn a little beer money and likely to run at the first sign of trouble?

You're right. No reason at all.

in a system where being a "highly trained mercenary" mattered yes, but this is not that system.


We've been over this. Fighter has some fiat but is improvisation heavy. Wizard has some improvisation but is fiat heavy. Both have access to the other, but each favors one approach.

Yes, the skill contest system favors fighter. One skill contest per attack is going to be weighted towards the guy with 2-4 attacks per turn over the guy with one. He uses that system better than the wizard, just as barbarian and rogue do (rogue for higher skill check totals, barbarian for a little of both). It's the difference between an eldritch knight and a wizard.

If you really focus on fiat abilities, other options exist. Fighter actually isn't that bad in EK/BM format, certainly more than champion or barbarian. Paladin and ranger take it a step further, but they can't use these abilities that often, while monk has lower key abilities they can use a great deal, open hand monk probably wins for most powerful short rest abilities in 5e (over warlock, and yes I'll argue this point).

EVERY class can improvise equally, and no there is no option to be a complex, powerful and tacitly interesting and challenging fighter that does not involve becoming a caster.

[Knaight]

in a system where being a "highly trained mercenary" mattered yes, but this is not that system.

What are you talking about? A mid level 5e martial character can handle themselves in a fight as well as a dozen level 1 characters. They'll survive area affects that would destroy whole squads. They are way less susceptible to attrition (a fight where they lose half their HP is a fight they recover from in a day, a fight where half the minions you're paying to come with you die is a fight where you're down however many minions until you can hire new people). This is before getting into morale.

The one thing 5e characters are still very, very good at is fighting. Even in systems where the most powerful warriors are nowhere near high- or even mid-level D&D martial class standards, they're often useful. I'm not buying 5e characters not being so.

[silveralen]

EVERY class can improvise equally, and no there is no option to be a complex, powerful and tacitly interesting and challenging fighter that does not involve becoming a caster.

No they can't. A class like rogue or fighter has mechanical benefits which make their improvisation more effective. Rogue is more likely to succeed on skill contests, fighter uses up less of his turn for one. They literally improvise better.

Sure there is. Just not on 4e levels. To be fair, casters aren't at 4e levels either, both end up using a lot more basic damage dealing attacks and fewer special abilities.

[Vogonjeltz]

The ability to improvise doesn't obviate the need for fiat abilities. Everyone can improvise. Fiat abilities add to that.

By fiat abilities do you mean like, button abilities? (i.e. discretely defined abilities that have a specific action and result?, Second Wind for example).

I think the Fighter has plenty of those buttons and 2/3 subtypes add on a few more; the real meat of the Fighter's abilities are being able to substitute for a melee attack any contest or improvised attack like activity, in the same vein as Grapple and Shove.

I mean, the book pretty much tells you to make up anything you want and use it as a melee attack.


Casters lack the ability to improvise with magic the way that fighters do with STR. I've been feeling the pain of this since 2nd ed, wanting to do things very close to what my spells do, but not quite what's in the description (eg sculpt a fireball to burn off some goo from the party members without hurting anyone, while out of combat).

See, I think this is a great idea, I'd totally allow a player to inventively use spells if they can properly justify what they're trying to achieve. Like using a Firebolt to create steam for a sauna, or to melt the ice off a frozen player or what have you.


great, so I get to play a guessing game for what my DM will allow. while casters know when they make their character what they can do.

there is no reason why some classes should have no real option but to ask the DM to let them houserule in cool things for them to do, and other classes have all the options they need in the core books.

Well, it's not actually a guessing game, but then I suppose I'm not relying on having a DM who is actively trying to sabotage the game.


you personalty did not think 4e felt like D&D, how does that matter to anyone but you? it was a successful game that outsold pathfinder for the entire time they both were putting out new material (with the exception of essentials, which broke the assumptions of 4e classes)

your not a defender if the best you can do is sorta annoy one guy per round, you need to be able to lay down control equal to a wizard, even if its more limited in area.

also the roles are not something that MMO's invented nor somthing that 4e invented they are emergent from basic tactics, every version of D&D has them.

Are you trying to discredit my position by claiming it's based on emotions? I'm describing an objective understanding of the functionality of the abilities in 4e, not how I personally perceived it. Here, let me help by rephrasing it and removing the word feeling: The powers are entirely like buttons in an MMO, which the 4th edition was mimicking to cash in on the absolute dominance of World of Warcraft at the time (2008). Like it or not, that is what occurred.

That would be a controller per the terminology, not a defender. Arguably the Fighter is also capable of controlling enemies because of the ability to substitute status changing effects for their attacks.

Lastly, MMOs codified roles and indeed made them requisite to succeed in gameplay. D&D has never required any particular role.


ummm why? you can say "I am going to cast my fireball carefully, so it does just enough damage to get the goo off, but not enough to hurt anyone" just as easily as a fighter can say "I am going to try and bull rush this guy into the wall, then strike at the guys next to him"

Because that's not what the spell does. I personally would allow them to try precision use of things like Firebolt to say, burn a leech or something similar, but they'd still have to nail the attack roll and missing would probably hit the person the leech was on. But as we know, what I personally feel should be possible we don't know how that matters to anyone else right?


But seriously why the heck is this still a conversation.

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+is+this+still+a+thing

John Oliver ftw?

[themaque]

in a system where being a "highly trained mercenary" mattered yes, but this is not that system.


First, you specifically requested an IN CHARACTER reason for wanting ONE equal level fighter style PC vs. 5 peasants. You then ignored that reason to fall back upon the rules system.

IN CHARACTER a single highly trained companion can be very appealing rather than having to corral lowlife scum you can not rely on. Even Raistlen stubbornly accepted his brothers occasional usefulness.

A noble knight, a trained woodsman hunter, a mercenary lieutenant, the unstoppable wall of furry all seem more appealing than, the crowd you found outside the bar willing to die for the price of a bottle of cheap whisky. If you're hunting down monsters, which is really more appealing?


EVERY class can improvise equally, and no there is no option to be a complex, powerful and tacitly interesting and challenging fighter that does not involve becoming a caster.

This is starting to edge into other topics, rather than just straight 5e vs previous editions, however. As a fighter, you are a mortal highly trained in the art of putting pointed sticks into other people, not breaking the laws of nature at your whim.

There is no pre-written power that allows you to say "I do this special thing and win" no. There are much fewer grandstanding abilities pre-written into the classes, that's true.

But if you need those to create a powerful, tactically interesting, or challenging fighter then you have little grasp of tactics or strategy, both of which can be used to overcome obstacles.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Maybe you shoulda just bought the whiskey instead and stayed home?

[themaque]

I'm finding limited sympathy here for D&D players complaining about it being hard finding new players. I mean, really. Yes, it's harder to acquire printed books, but that's about it. It's not like a constant stream of support is even anywhere necessary; plenty of non-D&D games get by with their one rulebook and no splats.

It's human nature. It may not be right, but it's a fair emotion to mourn the loss of that ease of use and position of being "official".

It will die down, and those who wish to stay in 4e will do so. Same happened with 3e and 2e before it. Some are hoping to convince others to stay and some just don't like going quietly.

[Knaight]

It's human nature. It may not be right, but it's a fair emotion to mourn the loss of that ease of use and position of being "official".

It will die down, and those who wish to stay in 4e will do so. Same happened with 3e and 2e before it. Some are hoping to convince others to stay and some just don't like going quietly.

I'm just saying that even the people in less popular D&D editions are still attached to the biggest brand in the industry, which is something like ten times the size of the nearest competitor (Pathfinder counts as D&D here, which probably makes the nearest competitor Whitewolf). The fanbase is immense, and if you're actively looking for players of a particular system, any edition of D&D gives you a gigantic advantage.

[Battlebooze]

~Steps into the ring, flexing my puny 8 strength arms.~

And I say, ONLY THE RED BASIC BOOK IS TRUE D&D!

Hehe, come on everyone, lighten up. :smallsmile:

[NotALurker]

By fiat abilities do you mean like, button abilities? (i.e. discretely defined abilities that have a specific action and result?, Second Wind for example).

I think the Fighter has plenty of those buttons and 2/3 subtypes add on a few more; the real meat of the Fighter's abilities are being able to substitute for a melee attack any contest or improvised attack like activity, in the same vein as Grapple and Shove.

I mean, the book pretty much tells you to make up anything you want and use it as a melee attack.

sure anyting the DM thinks would work, you better hope he is not one of those people who wants the fighter to only be able to do things that you can do in real life. and he better have a good grasp of the math of the system or you may have so bad odds of doing the cool things that you might as well not do them.




Well, it's not actually a guessing game, but then I suppose I'm not relying on having a DM who is actively trying to sabotage the game.

so you can go over every situation that can ever come up, and go over them with your DM? you must have alot of free time.

if it works so well why did they waste that much time putting in spells, would it not be better to just say "talk to your DM about what spells you get" and be done with it? any logic that would have one class denied real abilities would apply to all others.



Are you trying to discredit my position by claiming it's based on emotions? I'm describing an objective understanding of the functionality of the abilities in 4e, not how I personally perceived it. Here, let me help by rephrasing it and removing the word feeling: The powers are entirely like buttons in an MMO, which the 4th edition was mimicking to cash in on the absolute dominance of World of Warcraft at the time (2008). Like it or not, that is what occurred.

That would be a controller per the terminology, not a defender. Arguably the Fighter is also capable of controlling enemies because of the ability to substitute status changing effects for their attacks.

Lastly, MMOs codified roles and indeed made them requisite to succeed in gameplay. D&D has never required any particular role.

D&D parties have always needed to have roles to succeed, unless you think you can win a fight without doing any damage, any control, any buffing/healing or any defending. you do any of those you are in that role.

again roles are in EVERY COMBAT ENGINE EVER MADE, 4e just account for it rather then letting some classes have 3 roles, some 1 and some none.

show me your objective study of the feelings of people who played 4e, then show me the data that would turn that into useful data. until you do that when you say "people felt that 4e was " you are speaking only your personal feelings, so you are wasting time and space.



Because that's not what the spell does. I personally would allow them to try precision use of things like Firebolt to say, burn a leech or something similar, but they'd still have to nail the attack roll and missing would probably hit the person the leech was on. But as we know, what I [i]personally feel should be possible we don't know how that matters to anyone else right?


that same logic would apply to a fighter, you can hit people with your sword and that is it.


First, you specifically requested an IN CHARACTER reason for wanting ONE equal level fighter style PC vs. 5 peasants. You then ignored that reason to fall back upon the rules system.

IN CHARACTER a single highly trained companion can be very appealing rather than having to corral lowlife scum you can not rely on. Even Raistlen stubbornly accepted his brothers occasional usefulness.

A noble knight, a trained woodsman hunter, a mercenary lieutenant, the unstoppable wall of furry all seem more appealing than, the crowd you found outside the bar willing to die for the price of a bottle of cheap whisky. If you're hunting down monsters, which is really more appealing?



This is starting to edge into other topics, rather than just straight 5e vs previous editions, however. As a fighter, you are a mortal highly trained in the art of putting pointed sticks into other people, not breaking the laws of nature at your whim.

There is no pre-written power that allows you to say "I do this special thing and win" no. There are much fewer grandstanding abilities pre-written into the classes, that's true.

But if you need those to create a powerful, tactically interesting, or challenging fighter then you have little grasp of tactics or strategy, both of which can be used to overcome obstacles.

OK there is a reason, but that would apply more to parties who are not in it for the money. if you want money you just get random thugs, pay them a gold each and are good to go.

[georgie_leech]

OK there is a reason, but that would apply more to parties who are not in it for the money. if you want money you just get random thugs, pay them a gold each and are good to go.

"Alright gents, we're off to infiltrate the lair of the mighty Arch-mage Thralnos, whose halls are rumoured to be paved with diamonds! He is guarded by legions of the dead, foul demons, and even Ancient Dragons! If we succeed, we'll be rich beyond our wildest dreams! However, we cannot do this alone; we will need help.

You there, drunken citizen that was just thrown out of the bar. You're hired!"

[NotALurker]

"Alright gents, we're off to infiltrate the lair of the mighty Arch-mage Thralnos, whose halls are rumoured to be paved with diamonds! He is guarded by legions of the dead, foul demons, and even Ancient Dragons! If we succeed, we'll be rich beyond our wildest dreams! However, we cannot do this alone; we will need help.

You there, drunken citizen that was just thrown out of the bar. You're hired!"

pay them a years pay each and your good to go. its not like there is much they can't do that a fighter of your level can.

[Battlebooze]

pay them a years pay each and your good to go. its not like there is much they can't do that a fighter of your level can.

No advances. Do PC's get paid up front to do quests? Not damn likely.

What you do is give your minion's family a promissory note worth X coins if and when they return successfully from the expedition. Offer a "death" payment, if they at least die trying.

[georgie_leech]

pay them a years pay each and your good to go. its not like there is much they can't do that a fighter of your level can.

Except, you know, engage in CR appropriate fights. You're being dismissive to the point of ridiculousness here, if you think the average Commoner is anywhere near as effective as a trained soldier or skilled mercenary.

[NotALurker]

Except, you know, engage in CR appropriate fights. You're being dismissive to the point of ridiculousness here, if you think the average Commoner is anywhere near as effective as a trained soldier or skilled mercenary.

they do not have to be, but 4 or 5 will be.

no they SHOULD Not be, but in 5e they are because fighters can only swing their sword and there is very little scaling with level.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

lol. dragons can defeat infinity peasants with lair actions alone.

[georgie_leech]

they do not have to be, but 4 or 5 will be.

no they SHOULD Not be, but in 5e they are because fighters can only swing their sword and there is very little scaling with level.

Except for extra attacks without being excessively vulnerable to AoE, more damage, more HP, better defences, feats, a variety of combat maneuvers, not dying to basic environmental hazards, the ability to actually contribute if skills are required, not being known as the Adventuring Group that hires a bunch of random people just to get them killed...

[Battlebooze]

lol. dragons can defeat infinity peasants with lair actions alone.

No. An Infinity Peasant is infinitely powerful, hence the name. Multiple of them would be... more powerful.


I think you mean, dragons can defeat an infinite number of peasants with lair actions alone.

And you would be right!

[themaque]

No. An Infinity Peasant is infinitely powerful, hence the name. Multiple of them would be... more powerful.


I have assembled the six Infinity Peasants, the builder, the native, the guard, the soldier, the rancher, and the tanner!

With their combined powers I have become a true MACHO-MAN!

[Battlebooze]

I have assembled the six Infinity Peasants, the builder, the native, the guard, the soldier, the rancher, and the tanner!

With their combined powers I have become a true MACHO-MAN!

LOL!

Insert lame Y M C A joke here that I flubbed

Shame shame. ;) on me!

[ChubbyRain]

lol. dragons can defeat infinity peasants with lair actions alone.

I know what you mean but I never thought of the infinity gauntlet being powered by infinity peasants. Which are stones made by, well, yeah how rock and stones are made but replace rock and stone with peasants.

Also, peasants wouldn't fight a dragon in its lair, they would wait for the dragon to come to them. The inifity peasant corps (I now see them as a type of lantern corps...) could and would beat a dragon.

If the dragon is always in the lair then the peasants don't care and won't go in there. If the dragon wants to do anything they have to come outside the lair. Thus infinity peasants wins. They represent the emotional spectrum of grumpy cat and they are tired of being pushed around by monsters and PCs alike. When they come together they are considered a swarm with +1 damage per peasant. They swarm and can work like ants. Their lantern color would be gray of course.

I'm not mocking the use of infinity peasants, I actually might make that into a legit thing in my next campaign. A group of peasants from all over the world who have banded together in order to do... Whatever the hell they want? Not sure yet but I like the name.

[NotALurker]

Except for extra attacks without being excessively vulnerable to AoE, more damage, more HP, better defences, feats, a variety of combat maneuvers, not dying to basic environmental hazards, the ability to actually contribute if skills are required, not being known as the Adventuring Group that hires a bunch of random people just to get them killed...

and peasants are not as vulnerable to large single hits, I would say that cancels out the AOE weakness.

fighters can hardly contribute as is to anything that needs skills, and as a rule having four chances with a lower chance of success is better then having one roll with a good chance of success in 5e.

I would rather be known as the adventuring party that makes 30% more per person then the one who has fewer people.

[themaque]

I don't think your reputation would be...


the adventuring party that makes 30% more per person

I think what people would take away from it is you're the adventuring party that uses peasants as ablative armor for the wizard.

Meta-gaming question: Are you suggesting that you would rather go it alone with a hoard of NPC's than play with another person playing his actual character? or are you suggesting that someone should play 5 small character to your one big one?

In character question, How long before your minions unionize and demand a larger share of the profits over the small share you are giving them? If they are as useful as you say, how long before they start to question their pay scale and lack of health benefits?

[hawklost]

I don't think your reputation would be...



I think what people would take away from it is you're the adventuring party that uses peasants as ablative armor for the wizard.

Meta-gaming question: Are you suggesting that you would rather go it alone with a hoard of NPC's than play with another person playing his actual character? or are you suggesting that someone should play 5 small character to your one big one?

In character question, How long before your minions unionize and demand a larger share of the profits over the small share you are giving them? If they are as useful as you say, how long before they start to question their pay scale and lack of health benefits?

Heck, how long before your minions stab you while you are sleeping. Probably holding you down and knocking you out after a single run to grab your loot?

I mean heck. 10000% more than they ever made in a year and 2 of the 5 dead due to the wizard using them as shields and most ruffian types would just kill the wizard and take the loot. They can live off the loot for years and know one would ever question a dead Adventurer since they are in hazardous jobs.

[NotALurker]

I don't think your reputation would be...



I think what people would take away from it is you're the adventuring party that uses peasants as ablative armor for the wizard.

Meta-gaming question: Are you suggesting that you would rather go it alone with a hoard of NPC's than play with another person playing his actual character? or are you suggesting that someone should play 5 small character to your one big one?

In character question, How long before your minions unionize and demand a larger share of the profits over the small share you are giving them? If they are as useful as you say, how long before they start to question their pay scale and lack of health benefits?

my problem is that my character and me would want two different things. my wizard would want to make as much money as possible while having the best chance of living to spend it. that means hiring low level fighters.
I however want to play with my friend who likes to play fighters.
a good game would would know this and make sure that the best in character decision would be to hire one high level fighter.

If the low level fighters unionize then you fire them and hire more.
I would be very very easy to find people to hire if your offering a year of wages for a month of work to people who are stuck in a job that barely puts food on their table. not to mention you travel alot. if you stay in one small town that is very well of it would be a problem but otherwise not.

its not like they would be prisoners, they know what they are getting into, also I am not talking about 1 wizard and some peasants, more like 3 full casters and some peasants. it would be easy enough to make sure they can't hurt you in your sleep with that many spells

[themaque]

my problem is that my character and me would want two different things. my wizard would want to make as much money as possible while having the best chance of living to spend it. that means hiring low level fighters.
I however want to play with my friend who likes to play fighters.
a good game would would know this and make sure that the best in character decision would be to hire one high level fighter.


We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't tell you how your wizard would or would not feel, but I think it's just silly to assume that as "standard" thinking. It doesn't follow for me.




its not like they would be prisoners, they know what they are getting into, also I am not talking about 1 wizard and some peasants, more like 3 full casters and some peasants. it would be easy enough to make sure they can't hurt you in your sleep with that many spells

Now this can an interesting concept, and could be played up into an interesting campaign. Not as you've written thus far but with some minor changes. You're not hiring out drunks, you are supporting the locals to work through their own problems. If you where to leave a sizable chunk the community I do believe you would be praised for your efforts.

Your current plan you come of as opportunistic jerkwads using mortals as ablative armor. re-skinned and with a smaller profit margin and you have yourself the beginning of a real cool idea. heck the jerkwad approach could STILL work so long as there is a bard or the equivalent in the party to smart talk the naysayers.

Interesting campaign/story but I don't see it becoming SOP.

[NotALurker]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't tell you how your wizard would or would not feel, but I think it's just silly to assume that as "standard" thinking. It doesn't follow for me.




Now this can an interesting concept, and could be played up into an interesting campaign. Not as you've written thus far but with some minor changes. You're not hiring out drunks, you are supporting the locals to work through their own problems. If you where to leave a sizable chunk the community I do believe you would be praised for your efforts.

Your current plan you come of as opportunistic jerkwads using mortals as ablative armor. re-skinned and with a smaller profit margin and you have yourself the beginning of a real cool idea. heck the jerkwad approach could STILL work so long as there is a bard or the equivalent in the party to smart talk the naysayers.

Interesting campaign/story but I don't see it becoming SOP.

my only assumption was that my wizard wants to live and make money more then he wants to predent that a fighter can ever be his equal (because in 5e past very lower levels he could never be)

[Oscredwin]

So you pay the peasants some upfront with the promise of more later and on the first night they flee. You do this again, offering less up front and they still flee on the second night. You try this with all the pay at the end, have trouble finding people so it takes a few extra days. Once you found some mercs, you head out. The first night you have to deal with your hirelings trying to rob you. You survive the attack and fight them off, but now you're broke. You go back and team up with the fighter who has the mettle to actually stand and face the mighty trolls.

[NotALurker]

So you pay the peasants some upfront with the promise of more later and on the first night they flee. You do this again, offering less up front and they still flee on the second night. You try this with all the pay at the end, have trouble finding people so it takes a few extra days. Once you found some mercs, you head out. The first night you have to deal with your hirelings trying to rob you. You survive the attack and fight them off, but now you're broke. You go back and team up with the fighter who has the mettle to actually stand and face the mighty trolls.

or you pay them weekly, and use spells to protect yourself and your good.

[themaque]

my only assumption was that my wizard wants to live and make money more then he wants to predent that a fighter can ever be his equal (because in 5e past very lower levels he could never be)

Now you're making a different argument.

You said why would you want a fighter when a mass of peasants would be even better. in this context you are not balancing the fighter Vs. Wizard but Fighter Vs 1/2 dozen farmers. In my opinion, the fighter wins.

Now the Fighter Vs. Wizard argument has been spread across enough boards it doesn't need repeating here. But if you feel the need to hire a body guard at all, your taking away from the argument that a wizard does not need anyone martial at his side at all. So who is the best bang for your buck? that falls back to the above paragraph.

[NotALurker]

Now you're making a different argument.

You said why would you want a fighter when a mass of peasants would be even better. in this context you are not balancing the fighter Vs. Wizard but Fighter Vs 1/2 dozen farmers. In my opinion, the fighter wins.

Now the Fighter Vs. Wizard argument has been spread across enough boards it doesn't need repeating here. But if you feel the need to hire a body guard at all, your taking away from the argument that a wizard does not need anyone martial at his side at all. So who is the best bang for your buck? that falls back to the above paragraph.

the problem is that you can't take 5 level 1 wizards and duplicate a level 5 wizard. you can do that with a fighter. also everyone can be a fighter just get them armor, a weapon your good to go.

[themaque]

the problem is that you can't take 5 level 1 wizards and duplicate a level 5 wizard. you can do that with a fighter. also everyone can be a fighter just get them armor, a weapon your good to go.

Your farmers aren't going to be proficient in that armor nor with the weapons. They are not typically going to have the stats nor the saves to reliably get the job done to the same standard either. Their numbers will help overcome some problems yes, but it's not nearly as sustainable as each combat their numbers will dwindle in ways not as easily replenished with one fighter, who can self heal to a far greater effect.

If you're saying the only thing a fighter has is his Weapon and Armor proficiency, then you need to re-read the class. Peasants aren't going to be up to the same standards, as I explained previously. And you don't just slap armor on a full caster and expect him to pull double duty to the same standards.

Now if that same caster is also now going to be dedicating concentration and spell slots to buffing, you're just making an Eldritch Knight from the opposite direction.

[VeliciaL]

It's also worth noting, the fighter isn't typically working for the wizard. So the wizard could hire a bunch of local commoners... or he could let his adventuring fighter buddy tag along in exchange for a share of the loot.

The fact that this fighter is played by a buddy of yours is gravy.

[themaque]

It's also worth noting, the fighter isn't typically working for the wizard. So the wizard could hire a bunch of local commoners... or he could let his adventuring fighter buddy tag along in exchange for a share of the loot.

The fact that this fighter is played by a buddy of yours is gravy.

Wish we could click like on posts so... LIKE. :smallbiggrin:

[NotALurker]

Your farmers aren't going to be proficient in that armor nor with the weapons. They are not typically going to have the stats nor the saves to reliably get the job done to the same standard either. Their numbers will help overcome some problems yes, but it's not nearly as sustainable as each combat their numbers will dwindle in ways not as easily replenished with one fighter, who can self heal to a far greater effect.

If you're saying the only thing a fighter has is his Weapon and Armor proficiency, then you need to re-read the class. Peasants aren't going to be up to the same standards, as I explained previously. And you don't just slap armor on a full caster and expect him to pull double duty to the same standards.

Now if that same caster is also now going to be dedicating concentration and spell slots to buffing, you're just making an Eldritch Knight from the opposite direction.

with three full casters the SOP would be to use your peasants as a front line, and win every combat after 1 or 2 rounds. no reason any fight should last more then that given you are not crippled with a non full caster taking up a real slot in the party. with lots of healing from your healer(s) and short days anything that does not kill your peasents in one blow should not be a problem.


It's also worth noting, the fighter isn't typically working for the wizard. So the wizard could hire a bunch of local commoners... or he could let his adventuring fighter buddy tag along in exchange for a share of the loot.

The fact that this fighter is played by a buddy of yours is gravy.

that is just meta gaming. the wizard is bring things to the party that no number of lower level casters can bring, that is not the case for a fighter.

[ChubbyRain]

It's also worth noting, the fighter isn't typically working for the wizard. So the wizard could hire a bunch of local commoners... or he could let his adventuring fighter buddy tag along in exchange for a share of the loot.

The fact that this fighter is played by a buddy of yours is gravy.

That's only what the Wizard wants you to think. Of course the fighter is working for the wizard even if a buddy is controlling said fighter.

Wizard wants a meat shield after all, the fact that they are friends is the only reason Angel Summoning Man gives BMX bandit any loot. Hell if they weren't friends then Angel Summoning Man wouldn't even allow BMX bandit to get XP.

[themaque]

Nope. Out. No Point.

[georgie_leech]

that is just meta gaming. the wizard is bring things to the party that no number of lower level casters can bring, that is not the case for a fighter.

Have you never had a friend? You know, a comrade that you enjoy spending time with? It's not meta gaming for your Wizard to have a Fighter friend, possibly from earlier adventuring. To quote The Giant:

"Maybe, just maybe, the other PCs are your friends and you are willing to help them just because. Too often that last part is forgotten; I don't think anyone reading this has never spent the night doing something they'd rather not because a friend asked."

[NotALurker]

Have you never had a friend? You know, a comrade that you enjoy spending time with? It's not meta gaming for your Wizard to have a Fighter friend, possibly from earlier adventuring. To quote The Giant:

"Maybe, just maybe, the other PCs are your friends and you are willing to help them just because. Too often that last part is forgotten; I don't think anyone reading this has never spent the night doing something they'd rather not because a friend asked."

sure in some cases you would be willing to risk death and take a pay cut just so a you help a gimp friend. but given you are in a profession where you risk your life all the time it would become more rare as wizards became more powerful. and of course the higher you go the more likely any new members would be to be casters.

it also could be a PR problem, have too many non-casters and people think you are weak.

[McBars]

Does anyone else picture NotALurker's version of a wizard as something like this:
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/60227200.jpg

A wizard whose motivations in life are "get gold and live to spend it" is an incredible idiot (and an incredibly boring one) whether he hires tavern stooges or Conan as his meat shield(s). She'd be much safer and possibly richer simply becoming a guild artisan instead of wasting so much time studying magic. At the very least, rather than adventure just learn to cast Fabricate and make a handsome living selling widgets, tchotchkes, and knickknacks.

Foolish caricatures of wizards for the sake of making ridiculous arguments aside, 5e fighters stand up to casters just fine; run the gauntlet that is the 6-8 encounters comprising the "recommended number" of encounters in a standard adventuring day, and the 5e wizard is gasping for air (or taking it easy for an encounter or 2) by encounter #4 or 5, while the fighter gives nary a crap and keeps on killing.

I've played a fighter and paladin through level 11, and a beloved diviner wizard though 15, and all three were potent, "mattered", and fun as hell to play.

[NotALurker]

Does anyone else picture NotALurker's version of a wizard as something like this:
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/60227200.jpg

A wizard whose motivations in life are "get gold and live to spend it" is an incredible idiot (and an incredibly boring one) whether he hires tavern stooges or Conan as his meat shield(s). She'd be much safer and possibly richer simply becoming a guild artisan instead of wasting so much time studying magic. At the very least, rather than adventure just learn to cast Fabricate and make a handsome living selling widgets, tchotchkes, and knickknacks.

Foolish caricatures of wizards for the sake of making ridiculous arguments aside, 5e fighters stand up to casters just fine; run the gauntlet that is the 6-8 encounters comprising the "recommended number" of encounters in a standard adventuring day, and the 5e wizard is gasping for air (or taking it easy for an encounter or 2) by encounter #4 or 5, while the fighter gives nary a crap and keeps on killing.

I've played a fighter and paladin through level 11, and a beloved diviner wizard though 15, and all three were potent, "mattered", and fun as hell to play.

were you to poll RL mercenarys how many do you think would say they are in it for something other then money? after all they could do any number of other lower risk jobs with a steady paycheck.

did they really matter, as in every combat was much easier because you were there or did someone meta-game for you? a DM had creatures attack you for no reason whatsoever "I could attack the easy to hit threatning target, or I could go for the hard to hit non-threating one....I will go for the hard to hit non-threatning one" and having spell casters careful not to step on your toes or have them non be as optimized as a real character of their int scare would be.

...why would a wizard use spells evenly every fight until he was out? you save your spells for the fights that matter and let the meatwall take care of the fights that do not. also I want to be useful in every fight no matter how long or how short it is and no matter what class I am.

that is one of the problems with casters right now, no matter how long a day is they STILL shine when it matters most

[Battlebooze]

Said hypothetical Wizard master of farmers should pick up some necromancy spells. You can send in the minions, then turn them into zombies after they die! Double effective!

[McBars]

were you to poll RL mercenarys how many do you think would say they are in it for something other then money? after all they could do any number of other lower risk jobs with a steady paycheck.

did they really matter, as in every combat was much easier because you were there or did someone meta-game for you? a DM had creatures attack you for no reason whatsoever "I could attack the easy to hit threatning target, or I could go for the hard to hit non-threating one....I will go for the hard to hit non-threatning one" and having spell casters careful not to step on your toes or have them non be as optimized as a real character of their int scare would be.

...why would a wizard use spells evenly every fight until he was out? you save your spells for the fights that matter and let the meatwall take care of the fights that do not. also I want to be useful in every fight no matter how long or how short it is and no matter what class I am.

that is one of the problems with casters right now, no matter how long a day is they STILL shine when it matters most

I don't care One whit about the behaviors of RL mercenaries; I like games with elves, wizards, dragons, and pretty much as little to do with Real Life as possible.

Absolutely. Got a good laugh at "or did someone meta-game for you?" The Paladin bolstered party saves with the aura like nothing else could, was easily the best in-combat healer, imposed various Conditions via Smite spells, and dealt enormous on-demand damage via divine smites, not to mention the fights we completely avoided through the use of persuasion/intimidation. The fighter was an unmatched source of damage via archery and sharpshooter; if it was within 600' and we knew about it, arrows were soon to follow. 2 levels in rogue ensured mobility. Maneuvers granted allies advantage, extra attacks, and helped keep our less durable members from becoming targets all while allowing me to target almost anything on the battlefield.

That's great in theory, sorry that practice does not bear out your ideas. What happens when the Fight that Counts is the one after you blew that one level 7 spell you'd been judiciously saving for the previous fight?
Fire Bolt.

Now I danced and answered your questions, now please address mine:
Why has your pragmatic 20 int businessman wizard, in all his wisdom, not done the cost-benefit math and forsaken extremely dangerous adventuring in favor of the much safer & fiscally competitive options he'd no doubt be aware of being the intellectual Titan that he is? If youre going to use those principles to justify his behavior, why he is willfully & repeatedly endangering his life in the first place is baffling to me.

Riddle me that.

[NotALurker]

I don't care One whit about the behaviors of RL mercenaries; I like games with elves, wizards, dragons, and pretty much as little to do with Real Life as possible.

Absolutely. Got a good laugh at "or did someone meta-game for you?" The Paladin bolstered party saves with the aura like nothing else could, was easily the best in-combat healer, imposed various Conditions via Smite spells, and dealt enormous on-demand damage via divine smites, not to mention the fights we completely avoided through the use of persuasion/intimidation. The fighter was an unmatched source of damage via archery and sharpshooter; if it was within 600' and we knew about it, arrows were soon to follow. 2 levels in rogue ensured mobility. Maneuvers granted allies advantage, extra attacks, and helped keep our less durable members from becoming targets all while allowing me to target almost anything on the battlefield.

That's great in theory, sorry that practice does not bear out your ideas. What happens when the Fight that Counts is the one after you blew that one level 7 spell you'd been judiciously saving for the previous fight?
Fire Bolt.

Now I danced and answered your questions, now please address mine:
Why has your pragmatic 20 int businessman wizard, in all his wisdom, not done the cost-benefit math and forsaken extremely dangerous adventuring in favor of the much safer & fiscally competitive options he'd no doubt be aware of being the intellectual Titan that he is? If youre going to use those principles to justify his behavior, why he is willfully & repeatedly endangering his life in the first place is baffling to me.

Riddle me that.

while you will not be 100% you can be 80% without much trouble. You wait a round and see if anyone does anything that requires a spell or two. and of course divinations can help.


because he wants large amounts of money, more then he can get by doing anything with low risk? because he is not welcome wherever he would need to be to make the money? because he has people after him and he needs to stay on the run?

[VeliciaL]

because he is not welcome wherever he would need to be to make the money? because he has people after him and he needs to stay on the run?

If he's using the sort of tactics you're advising, this hardly surprises me.

[McBars]

while you will not be 100% you can be 80% without much trouble. You wait a round and see if anyone does anything that requires a spell or two. and of course divinations can help.


because he wants large amounts of money, more then he can get by doing anything with low risk? because he is not welcome wherever he would need to be to make the money? because he has people after him and he needs to stay on the run?


Cant spend it if you're dead and you're much more likely to be dead adventuring. He can easily make friends with his magic. Again, magic away those mundane troubles.

[NotALurker]

If he's using the sort of tactics you're advising, this hardly surprises me.

hardly, paying people alot of money for a risky but legal job is done today, let alone in a D&D setting where life would be much much cheaper.

[georgie_leech]

hardly, paying people alot of money for a risky but legal job is done today, let alone in a D&D setting where life would be much much cheaper.

If you're giving them the proper training, you're training Fighters and have opened an Adventuring School. If you're not, all you're doing is treating them as expendable cannon fodder and endangering human life. I'll give you three guesses as to which one is the legal one.

It's fine that you like to play characters on the south end of the alignment spectrum, but don't pretend that it's just good business.

[themaque]

it's just good business.

Hey yuz guys. come ehr. Dis is yuh lucky day.

http://www.petegodfrey.com/images/make-an-offer.jpg

I would normally go rogue for that character concept, but why not go wizard? He's just a good clean businessman after all.

[Vogonjeltz]

sure anyting the DM thinks would work, you better hope he is not one of those people who wants the fighter to only be able to do things that you can do in real life. and he better have a good grasp of the math of the system or you may have so bad odds of doing the cool things that you might as well not do them.

So I need to hope the DM isn't deliberately sabotaging the game? Who are these DMs?


so you can go over every situation that can ever come up, and go over them with your DM? you must have alot of free time.

if it works so well why did they waste that much time putting in spells, would it not be better to just say "talk to your DM about what spells you get" and be done with it? any logic that would have one class denied real abilities would apply to all others.

The metric used by the game rules is: Describe the action your character takes, DM tells you the roll required. The DM technically doesn't get a choice unless you're actually trying to break the laws of physics or stretch the bounds of the rational.

If you say: I want to tackle the orc, the DM tells you what action/rolls to use (probably attack action opposed athletics check with you both ending up prone if it works).

If you say: I want to rip a hole in space/time with my mind, that probably fails unless there's an in-game reason the character could do that. I don't know how this can be considered remotely difficult to achieve.

As for defining spells, no it would not be better. Spells are limited use abilities and intended to be more powerful than at will abilities (which skils, contests, and improvised actions all are). Anything that is a limited use ability needs must be defined, and they universally are.


D&D parties have always needed to have roles to succeed, unless you think you can win a fight without doing any damage, any control, any buffing/healing or any defending. you do any of those you are in that role.

This is patently wrong, the game never required roles.


show me your objective study of the feelings of people who played 4e, then show me the data that would turn that into useful data. until you do that when you say "people felt that 4e was [insert anything whatsoever here]" you are speaking only your personal feelings, so you are wasting time and space.'

I didn't state any feelings, I said
The powers are entirely like buttons in an MMO, which the 4th edition was mimicking to cash in on the absolute dominance of World of Warcraft at the time (2008). Like it or not, that is what occurred.

Which is entirely true, mmos use discrete abilities based on cooldowns. Identical to the powers mechanics. And my assessment is that this is why it failed with its declining sales being empirical evidence of its failure as a product line.


that same logic would apply to a fighter, you can hit people with your sword and that is it.

No, no it doesn't. The combat chapter describes the ability to substitute contests and improvised actions for attacks (shove, grapple, disarm, etc...).

[NotALurker]

So I need to hope the DM isn't deliberately sabotaging the game? Who are these DMs?

there are alot of DM's who are use to the pre-3e view that fighters are just dudes with swords. that if it can not be done in real life a fighter can not do it. so when I ask things like "I want to call a chalange to all the people within 20 feet of me and have them rush me" they will say "nice try, but no" or "sure, you have to make 2 or 3 rolls but you can do it"

also alot of people do not understand the math for having to roll multiple times to do any one action.



The metric used by the game rules is: Describe the action your character takes, DM tells you the roll required. The DM technically doesn't get a choice unless you're actually trying to break the laws of physics or stretch the bounds of the rational.

If you say: I want to tackle the orc, the DM tells you what action/rolls to use (probably attack action opposed athletics check with you both ending up prone if it works).

If you say: I want to rip a hole in space/time with my mind, that probably fails unless there's an in-game reason the character could do that. I don't know how this can be considered remotely difficult to achieve.

As for defining spells, no it would not be better. Spells are limited use abilities and intended to be more powerful than at will abilities (which skils, contests, and improvised actions all are). Anything that is a limited use ability needs must be defined, and they universally are.


"I want to cast a fireball that is 15ft wide"
"sure, it will cost you....5 mana"
"cool, that is so worth it"

done, if improvising were better then that is how 5e would work.

also its the games job to define the power of the classes, not the DM's.



This is patently wrong, the game never required roles.

so you know how to win a combat of D&D without doing any striking, defending, controlling or buffing/healing? do tell

the only way I can think is to make yourself so tough that they get bored and wonder off, but I do not think that would work in most cases


I didn't state any feelings, I said

Which is entirely true, mmos use discrete abilities based on cooldowns. Identical to the powers mechanics. And my assessment is that this is why it failed with its declining sales being empirical evidence of its failure as a product line.

...so does 5e and every other version of D&D. every ability has a set duration and cooldown.

while it was putting out new stuff 4e was successful, much more so then pathfinder. sales only sunk when they put out books full of stuff that went against the core ideas of 4e

[themaque]

there are alot of DM's who are use to the pre-3e view that fighters are just dudes with swords. that if it can not be done in real life a fighter can not do it. so when I ask things like "I want to call a chalange to all the people within 20 feet of me and have them rush me" they will say "nice try, but no" or "sure, you have to make 2 or 3 rolls but you can do it"

also alot of people do not understand the math for having to roll multiple times to do any one action.

Bad GM's are bad GM's in any system. Take a bad GM and they can ruin any system no matter how well written. If you trust your GM you shouldn't have to refer to the rules book as a legal document to protect yourself from GM chicanery.




"I want to cast a fireball that is 15ft wide"
"sure, it will cost you....5 mana"
"cool, that is so worth it"

done, if improvising were better then that is how 5e would work.

also its the games job to define the power of the classes, not the DM's.


Actually, that sounds similar to a Sorcerer using Metamagic so.. that's in the game already with slightly different mechanics. Thank you.




so you know how to win a combat of D&D without doing any striking, defending, controlling or buffing/healing? do tell

the only way I can think is to make yourself so tough that they get bored and wonder off, but I do not think that would work in most cases


Yes, I can win a combat by not ever doing any of that. It's called Diplomacy. You avoid the conflict and you have won the scenario.

You have confused the issue by stating that you not only have to fill these rolls, if you do not you are useless. That is not the case. If I make a courtier, I am fulfilling a "Role" in the party that doesn't strictly fall under your listed rolls defined in 4e.

Yes, you can argue any character that does damage in combat is a "Striker" or anyone that attempts to alter the battlefield is a "Controller". These are Terms cribbed from MMO's and should be general guidelines not necessarily a scripted path of play. Saying you HAVE to fulfill these roles is untrue.

SO EVERYONE: Yes, you can honestly argue that ANY character who is combat effective it attempting to fullfill a "role". HOWEVER, these roles are GUIDELINES and used only for ease of reference. Not a path to success and a character can easily not fulfill ANY of them but still be useful.



...so does 5e and every other version of D&D. every ability has a set duration and cooldown.

while it was putting out new stuff 4e was successful, much more so then pathfinder. sales only sunk when they put out books full of stuff that went against the core ideas of 4e

Once again you are technically correct. All "powers" have a "cool down" period. However viewing and calling it such makes it to "gamey" for some people.

Example: Let's say your fighter has an encounter power of "Sand in his Eyes". He attacks and if successful the target is blinded. It's an encounter power so has a set cool down.

Why? Why can he only throw sand in his eyes once an encounter? This is the system in which they refer. Some people feel there was a larger disconnect between fluff and mechanics. Since this style of mechanic was introduced in 4e and terminology cribed from MMO's, it's what made people say it felt to much like one.

Now a Warlock in 5e has several powers that work at will and some that have a "cool down" period of once per short rest. But the Fluff and the mechanics seem to blend a little better for some people.

As far as 4e Sales, I would leave that for another debate. You have already claimed earlier that Pathfinder sales NEVER outdid 4e, but that and this are debatable since useable data is hard to come by. http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/7580/is-pathfinder-selling-better-than-dd

but Archeo said it best earlier in this thread.


Somebody already said "Because Edition Wars," but seriously, it's just rank tribalism that can be entirely chalked up to the enormous mental/emotional/sometimes monetary investment players make in their TRPG of choice, and being wrong about their TRPG of choice is cognitive dissonance that cannot possibly be countenanced, etc., until you're shouting back and forth about "number of hits on Google in Q1 2014" or "book sales derived from Amazon ranking" and other business nonsense nobody really needs to care about unless they own Hasbro stock.

It's really too bad online interactions lack anything like the mirror behind the liquor at a bar; one of the best ways to get an angry person to calm down is to make them see themselves looking like a crazy person.

Everyone just play the Game you like and let anyone else play the game THEY like.

[Oscredwin]

so you know how to win a combat of D&D without doing any striking, defending, controlling or buffing/healing? do tell


Sneak past the monster, plunder their treasure and get XP=GP acquired, and then sneak back out again.

[NotALurker]

Bad GM's are bad GM's in any system. Take a bad GM and they can ruin any system no matter how well written. If you trust your GM you shouldn't have to refer to the rules book as a legal document to protect yourself from GM chicanery.

because the game should only work for the best of DM's, other groups are unimportant.

also if the game has real powers for fighters it gives DMs a good baseline to work from. if my fighter can jump 50ft at will and can punch through a 5ft stone wall whenever he feels like it then my DM is not likly to say I can not grapple a giant. if all my fighter can do is hit things with a sword then he has no context for my powers.




Actually, that sounds similar to a Sorcerer using Metamagic so.. that's in the game already with slightly different mechanics. Thank you.

so sorcers have no real writen spells they just have "mana" that lets them casts spells they make up on the spot then have the DM tell them how much it costs?




Yes, I can win a combat by not ever doing any of that. It's called Diplomacy. You avoid the conflict and you have won the scenario.

You have confused the issue by stating that you not only have to fill these rolls, if you do not you are useless. That is not the case. If I make a courtier, I am fulfilling a "Role" in the party that doesn't strictly fall under your listed rolls defined in 4e.

Yes, you can argue any character that does damage in combat is a "Striker" or anyone that attempts to alter the battlefield is a "Controller". These are Terms cribbed from MMO's and should be general guidelines not necessarily a scripted path of play. Saying you HAVE to fulfill these roles is untrue.

SO EVERYONE: Yes, you can honestly argue that ANY character who is combat effective it attempting to fullfill a "role". HOWEVER, these roles are GUIDELINES and used only for ease of reference. Not a path to success and a character can easily not fulfill ANY of them but still be useful.

no you did you win that combat you got around it. and no IN COMBAT you are only useful by do one of the roles, you might be ok with being useless in combat (your focused on Diplomacy and only have spells that effect that) but to say that someone who can not do any of the roles is usefull in combat wrong.



Once again you are technically correct. All "powers" have a "cool down" period. However viewing and calling it such makes it to "gamey" for some people.

Example: Let's say your fighter has an encounter power of "Sand in his Eyes". He attacks and if successful the target is blinded. It's an encounter power so has a set cool down.

Why? Why can he only throw sand in his eyes once an encounter? This is the system in which they refer. Some people feel there was a larger disconnect between fluff and mechanics. Since this style of mechanic was introduced in 4e and terminology cribed from MMO's, it's what made people say it felt to much like one.

Now a Warlock in 5e has several powers that work at will and some that have a "cool down" period of once per short rest. But the Fluff and the mechanics seem to blend a little better for some people.

I am waiting for you to say something useful
"some people felt that some parts of 4e were like an MMO and some people then felt that was bad"? that is a useless statement.

please define why gamey is bad, with context and data for the number of people felt that.

please define why, even though 3e powers had cool downs just as much as 4e that was still a reason to not like 4e. also do not use "Feeling" in your response, I am asking for a reason not your personal feelings. also provide a context and data.

because when you throw sand in someones eyes, everyone else knows about it and can stop you? because I not need the system to fluff all my powers and hold my and like 3e did?







As far as 4e Sales, I would leave that for another debate. You have already claimed earlier that Pathfinder sales NEVER outdid 4e, but that and this are debatable since useable data is hard to come by. http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/7580/is-pathfinder-selling-better-than-dd

but Archeo said it best earlier in this thread.

Everyone just play the Game you like and let anyone else play the game THEY like.

were people just saying they liked 3e better then 4e I would not care. what I care about is when people start spreading lies about 4e, and people talking about it who have no idea how it works but have no problem spreading their misinformation to others.


Sneak past the monster, plunder their treasure and get XP=GP acquired, and then sneak back out again.

again that did not win the fight, you just went around it. I said how do you WIN the fight

[Fwiffo86]

no you did you win that combat you got around it. and no IN COMBAT you are only useful by do one of the roles, you might be ok with being useless in combat (your focused on Diplomacy and only have spells that effect that) but to say that someone who can not do any of the roles is usefull in combat wrong.


They are called "encounters" for the very reason that it does not require combat to overcome it.



please define why gamey is bad, with context and data for the number of people felt that.

If my character says that I can only "throw sand in the eyes" once per encounter I had better be playing a videogame. Being limited by cooldowns of this nature are the hallmark of MMOs. What could possibly stop me from scooping up another handful and flinging it at my opponent? The simple answer is nothing. When you put every conceivable action into a "power" you do not allow for free flowing ideas and bizarre non-rules actions to be undertaken by your players. They use only what they have on their character sheet and nothing more. They in essence become nothing more than a series of cooldowns with no original thought. If I wanted that experience, I would play a videogame.



please define why, even though 3e powers had cool downs just as much as 4e that was still a reason to not like 4e. also do not use "Feeling" in your response, I am asking for a reason not your personal feelings. also provide a context and data.

Those that offer opinions against 4e seem to be players that are vastly dissatisfied with the "every ability" cooldown paradigm. I am one of these people. While it is accurate to say that 3e had "cooldowns", so did 2nd, 1st, BECMI, and every other variation. 3 per day is a cooldown. I can cast 4 1st level spells today is a cooldown. The difference here is that they are generally not tied to "encounters/days/at wills".

Again, as I said above, having everything on your character sheet (short of your main at will attack power) broken into three categories removes the "I decide what my character is capable of" scenario. You remove the power of the player by pigeonholing it into the same mechanics of every other character sitting at the table.

While this is a good mechanic for maintaining balance, not everyone is comfortable with absolute equality. Players like to feel powerful in some situations, and other players like to overcome their character's weaknesses. These situations rarely crop up as everyone has the same power scale and it is nearly impossible to out-do another player once in a while, because its all the same total bonuses/penalties/damage/etc.

It boils down to the question: Do I want to immerse myself in a character, with all of his/her strengths and weaknesses, or do I want to be immersed in absolute equality. It's a preference of player. Not an fault of the system.

[Oscredwin]

again that did not win the fight, you just went around it. I said how do you WIN the fight

Before 3.X that was the optimal strategy (when it worked) for adventuring in a dungeon, getting loot, and leveling up. You bring the fighter and cleric along because you'll end up in a fight eventually, but otherwise it's the wizard and the rogue sneaking you past monsters and working their way past traps (well, wizard and rogue class features, everyone gets to use their brain and standard adventuring equipment).

When you demand that people succeed at one specific and avoidable part of an adventure then you're making assumptions for how the game is played. There are many ways to rescue the princess from the dragon, not all of them involve fighting, and this game has allowed things from talking to the dragon, sneaking past the dragon, poisoning the dragons food and much more since the very beginning. That's what 4E really lacked, giving players tools to be creative problem solvers.

[Vogonjeltz]

there are alot of DM's who are use to the pre-3e view that fighters are just dudes with swords. that if it can not be done in real life a fighter can not do it. so when I ask things like "I want to call a chalange to all the people within 20 feet of me and have them rush me" they will say "nice try, but no" or "sure, you have to make 2 or 3 rolls but you can do it"

also alot of people do not understand the math for having to roll multiple times to do any one action.

Bad DM is Bad irrespective of the system. Challenging enemies is fine and easy (Intimidate), but nothing forces them to rush you and frankly dictating enemy actions is outside the purview of player choice. You might have a result you'd prefer, but again opponent decision making is outside the player's control.


"I want to cast a fireball that is 15ft wide"
"sure, it will cost you....5 mana"
"cool, that is so worth it"

done, if improvising were better then that is how 5e would work.

also its the games job to define the power of the classes, not the DM's.

Improvisation doesn't determine the power of a character, the power is innate, improvisation just allows for greater exploitation of that power.


...so does 5e and every other version of D&D. every ability has a set duration and cooldown.

while it was putting out new stuff 4e was successful, much more so then pathfinder. sales only sunk when they put out books full of stuff that went against the core ideas of 4e

Example: Let's say your fighter has an encounter power of "Sand in his Eyes". He attacks and if successful the target is blinded. It's an encounter power so has a set cool down.

Why? Why can he only throw sand in his eyes once an encounter? This is the system in which they refer. Some people feel there was a larger disconnect between fluff and mechanics. Since this style of mechanic was introduced in 4e and terminology cribed from MMO's, it's what made people say it felt to much like one.

What themaque says is correct, powers are just buttons without which you can't throw sand at someone's face. That's exactly like playing an MMO, there's no room for improvisation there. It's also completely disconnected from all other versions of D&D where descriptive play was a central tenet.

[themaque]

Aalso if the game has real powers for fighters it gives DMs a good baseline to work from. if my fighter can jump 50ft at will and can punch through a 5ft stone wall whenever he feels like it then my DM is not likly to say I can not grapple a giant. if all my fighter can do is hit things with a sword then he has no context for my powers.

You are correct. 5e is not this kind of game. a person can not jump 50 feet at will nor punch through 5 feet of stone without some form of magical aid. Some people like playing a more "human" level game. If this is what you feel needs to exist for someone to be "powerful" or "useful" this is not the game for you.

Is that the power level you think appropriate for a "standard" fighter, or where those just off the cuff examples?



so sorcers have no real writen spells they just have "mana" that lets them casts spells they make up on the spot then have the DM tell them how much it costs?

No, but the free form creation part of that was unclear in your original post. I assumed you where speaking of a Fireball spell he then modified. The Sorcerer can due that thanks to metemagic

You are correct. There is no ultimately completely free form magic system. Might I suggest MAGE from WoD? I highly enjoy it and it allows a brilliant amount of role play and free form spell creation! They even have a medieval setting.



no you did you win that combat you got around it. and no IN COMBAT you are only useful by do one of the roles, you might be ok with being useless in combat (your focused on Diplomacy and only have spells that effect that) but to say that someone who can not do any of the roles is usefull in combat wrong.

The game is more than combat, at least for many gaming tables. If that's what you want to focus on that's cool. But a character can be useful without fulfilling the narrow confines of a single role and can be a benefit to the party even if not a master of combat.



I am waiting for you to say something useful
"some people felt that some parts of 4e were like an MMO and some people then felt that was bad"? that is a useless statement.

please define why gamey is bad, with context and data for the number of people felt that.

please define why, even though 3e powers had cool downs just as much as 4e that was still a reason to not like 4e. also do not use "Feeling" in your response, I am asking for a reason not your personal feelings. also provide a context and data.

Why do I have to provide evidence for why I or anyone else FELT something was good or bad to them? There is no way to objectively PROVE someone WRONG for disliking something. That is a personal opinion not a fact. If I decide that I hate Shadowrun because I don't like mixing magic and fantasy, that is my opinion. It is impossible to objectively call me wrong for something that is opinion not a fact.

I never said the game was bad in of itself. I repeat, I NEVER SAID THE GAME ITSELF WAS BAD.

I never said it was broken or unplayable. I never even said I personally disliked it. ( I don't think. If I'm wrong here I apologize. Show me where I said it so I can correct myself properly) I said there was a number of people who disliked it. While I can't give you numbers, it is a fact SOME people disliked it. Some people loved it. I myself ENJOYED 4e and played it for some time. I said it didn't feel like D&D to me, but that is an opinion not a fact. WAS it D&D? of course it was. Said so right on the cover. But it didn't encapsulate the "spirit" of the game to me. If it had sold as well or been as universally accepted as they would have liked, they would have kept it. But for reasons they changed. I assume it was from user feedback, industry reports, and sales figures. However, I am not privy to the inner workings of WotC so that is admittedly pure conjecture on my part.

Could you please give context or data to show that 3e had just as many cool down powers as 4e? Or perhaps worked in the same way on some larger scale? Keep in mind, when I use the term "Cool down powers" I am specifically talking about the AT WILL, ENCOUNTER, and DAILY format. If you are using a different definition please provide one so we can be on the same page.



because when you throw sand in someones eyes, everyone else knows about it and can stop you? because I not need the system to fluff all my powers and hold my and like 3e did?

You hinted at what you expect a game system to provide for you. I understand you want a clean, perfectly balanced system of rules to deal with combat. That's perfectly understandable. I myself like to see a system that incorporates both ideas and mechanics. Both Crunch and Fluff. I like a system that has guidelines for out of combat situations. Be that Social interaction, utility magic, or a skill set.

I personally feel this edition does this quite well. Better than Pathfinder in many ways due to it more liberal nature. However, I do like a more conservative resource management game with higher power from time to time. That's why I still play Pathfinder on Sundays but 5e on Saturdays. No need to stick to one system.




were people just saying they liked 3e better then 4e I would not care. what I care about is when people start spreading lies about 4e, and people talking about it who have no idea how it works but have no problem spreading their misinformation to others.

Again, I'm confused. I'm not certain what lies are being told. I've heard plenty of personal opinions, but no outright lies that I am aware of. I could easily be mistaken.

Please tell me where I have been mistaken. If you could site your sources that would be most helpful so that I can be sure to not do so again.




again that did not win the fight, you just went around it. I said how do you WIN the fight

If I stop the fight before it even begins. I win.

Not everything revolves around combat.

[NotALurker]

Before 3.X that was the optimal strategy (when it worked) for adventuring in a dungeon, getting loot, and leveling up. You bring the fighter and cleric along because you'll end up in a fight eventually, but otherwise it's the wizard and the rogue sneaking you past monsters and working their way past traps (well, wizard and rogue class features, everyone gets to use their brain and standard adventuring equipment).

When you demand that people succeed at one specific and avoidable part of an adventure then you're making assumptions for how the game is played. There are many ways to rescue the princess from the dragon, not all of them involve fighting, and this game has allowed things from talking to the dragon, sneaking past the dragon, poisoning the dragons food and much more since the very beginning. That's what 4E really lacked, giving players tools to be creative problem solvers.

yes but you will at some point have to fight. that is my only assumption.


Bad DM is Bad irrespective of the system. Challenging enemies is fine and easy (Intimidate), but nothing forces them to rush you and frankly dictating enemy actions is outside the purview of player choice. You might have a result you'd prefer, but again opponent decision making is outside the player's control.



Improvisation doesn't determine the power of a character, the power is innate, improvisation just allows for greater exploitation of that power.




What themaque says is correct, powers are just buttons without which you can't throw sand at someone's face. That's exactly like playing an MMO, there's no room for improvisation there. It's also completely disconnected from all other versions of D&D where descriptive play was a central tenet.

so when you charm someone you do not get to say what he does? no reason my fighter can not do the same.







You are correct. 5e is not this kind of game. a person can not jump 50 feet at will nor punch through 5 feet of stone without some form of magical aid. Some people like playing a more "human" level game. If this is what you feel needs to exist for someone to be "powerful" or "useful" this is not the game for you.

Is that the power level you think appropriate for a "standard" fighter, or where those just off the cuff examples?


No, but the free form creation part of that was unclear in your original post. I assumed you where speaking of a Fireball spell he then modified. The Sorcerer can due that thanks to metemagic

You are correct. There is no ultimately completely free form magic system. Might I suggest MAGE from WoD? I highly enjoy it and it allows a brilliant amount of role play and free form spell creation! They even have a medieval setting.



The game is more than combat, at least for many gaming tables. If that's what you want to focus on that's cool. But a character can be useful without fulfilling the narrow confines of a single role and can be a benefit to the party even if not a master of combat.



Why do I have to provide evidence for why I or anyone else FELT something was good or bad to them? There is no way to objectively PROVE someone WRONG for disliking something. That is a personal opinion not a fact. If I decide that I hate Shadowrun because I don't like mixing magic and fantasy, that is my opinion. It is impossible to objectively call me wrong for something that is opinion not a fact.

I never said the game was bad in of itself. I repeat, I NEVER SAID THE GAME ITSELF WAS BAD.

I never said it was broken or unplayable. I never even said I personally disliked it. ( I don't think. If I'm wrong here I apologize. Show me where I said it so I can correct myself properly) I said there was a number of people who disliked it. While I can't give you numbers, it is a fact SOME people disliked it. Some people loved it. I myself ENJOYED 4e and played it for some time. I said it didn't feel like D&D to me, but that is an opinion not a fact. WAS it D&D? of course it was. Said so right on the cover. But it didn't encapsulate the "spirit" of the game to me. If it had sold as well or been as universally accepted as they would have liked, they would have kept it. But for reasons they changed. I assume it was from user feedback, industry reports, and sales figures. However, I am not privy to the inner workings of WotC so that is admittedly pure conjecture on my part.

Could you please give context or data to show that 3e had just as many cool down powers as 4e? Or perhaps worked in the same way on some larger scale? Keep in mind, when I use the term "Cool down powers" I am specifically talking about the AT WILL, ENCOUNTER, and DAILY format. If you are using a different definition please provide one so we can be on the same page.



You hinted at what you expect a game system to provide for you. I understand you want a clean, perfectly balanced system of rules to deal with combat. That's perfectly understandable. I myself like to see a system that incorporates both ideas and mechanics. Both Crunch and Fluff. I like a system that has guidelines for out of combat situations. Be that Social interaction, utility magic, or a skill set.

I personally feel this edition does this quite well. Better than Pathfinder in many ways due to it more liberal nature. However, I do like a more conservative resource management game with higher power from time to time. That's why I still play Pathfinder on Sundays but 5e on Saturdays. No need to stick to one system.




Again, I'm confused. I'm not certain what lies are being told. I've heard plenty of personal opinions, but no outright lies that I am aware of. I could easily be mistaken.

Please tell me where I have been mistaken. If you could site your sources that would be most helpful so that I can be sure to not do so again.




If I stop the fight before it even begins. I win.

Not everything revolves around combat.

cool, you must point out the "human" level wizard then, I must have missed him because all I see is a game with super heroic casters and mundane non-casters.

my point is that if one class is not given any powers NO classes should because either one is better or the other is for D&D no reason to besides incompitence to say that some classes that real abilities and others do not.

....I am talking about COMBAT AND ONLY COMBAT when I am talking about roles, it DOES NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST HOW MUCH OR LITTLE I LIKE IT OR HOW OFTEN COMBAT COMES UP. in combat you are at least one of the roles or your useless.

then do not trouble us when your feelings. as a test if you have the work "feeling" in a sentence that sentence should not be here.

sure full attack is an at-will power, as is basic attacks, most spells were daily's.

when you say "people felt that 4e was too gamey, so it failed" for example. that is a lie unless you have data to back up how people felt about it, and it is wrong because 4e did not fail.

the only person's feelings you do your will ever know are yours.


They are called "encounters" for the very reason that it does not require combat to overcome it.



If my character says that I can only "throw sand in the eyes" once per encounter I had better be playing a videogame. Being limited by cooldowns of this nature are the hallmark of MMOs. What could possibly stop me from scooping up another handful and flinging it at my opponent? The simple answer is nothing. When you put every conceivable action into a "power" you do not allow for free flowing ideas and bizarre non-rules actions to be undertaken by your players. They use only what they have on their character sheet and nothing more. They in essence become nothing more than a series of cooldowns with no original thought. If I wanted that experience, I would play a videogame.



Those that offer opinions against 4e seem to be players that are vastly dissatisfied with the "every ability" cooldown paradigm. I am one of these people. While it is accurate to say that 3e had "cooldowns", so did 2nd, 1st, BECMI, and every other variation. 3 per day is a cooldown. I can cast 4 1st level spells today is a cooldown. The difference here is that they are generally not tied to "encounters/days/at wills".

Again, as I said above, having everything on your character sheet (short of your main at will attack power) broken into three categories removes the "I decide what my character is capable of" scenario. You remove the power of the player by pigeonholing it into the same mechanics of every other character sitting at the table.

While this is a good mechanic for maintaining balance, not everyone is comfortable with absolute equality. Players like to feel powerful in some situations, and other players like to overcome their character's weaknesses. These situations rarely crop up as everyone has the same power scale and it is nearly impossible to out-do another player once in a while, because its all the same total bonuses/penalties/damage/etc.

It boils down to the question: Do I want to immerse myself in a character, with all of his/her strengths and weaknesses, or do I want to be immersed in absolute equality. It's a preference of player. Not an fault of the system.

that is why I said combat not encounter.

because the first time you throw sand in someone eyes it would surprise him, after that when you go for your bag of sand he sees it and can cover his eyes in time.

and again that logic would equally apply to wizards, they having their powers lined out you stop them from making things up themselves so no one should have powers lined out.

also if they lined out powers, then said that you do not have to use them everyone would win. it would be like they were in fact making the game they said they were going to make, rather then 2.5e

you do know that 3e had at-wills and dailys right? spells were dailys, using your sword was an at-will.

and no the classes in 4e were MUCH different then in 3e, so yes everyone has strenghts and weakness. much more then in 3e where past a certain levels some classes ONLY have weakness and some only have strenghts

[TheDeadlyShoe]

....I am talking about COMBAT AND ONLY COMBAT when I am talking about roles, it DOES NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST HOW MUCH OR LITTLE I LIKE IT OR HOW OFTEN COMBAT COMES UP. in combat you are at least one of the roles or your useless.

this is kinda silly? everything is either damage or damage mitigation in the end, and everyone has varying degrees of both.

[Gritmonger]

this is kinda silly? everything is either damage or damage mitigation in the end, and everyone has varying degrees of both.

Yeah - I mean, I was in Rolemaster (once, and only once) where I was supposedly the mage-blaster (damage) - and due to a lucky roll when we started, I was also flush with cash. We get accosted by a troll who throws an iceball and says "next one hits your head" - I hold up a shiny gold coin, and instead of being the blaster, I was instead the face, as a troll who saw an out instead recruited us to clear out the bandits who had taken up residence and reduced him to a guard from the owner of the lair.

Was I doing "social damage" or being a "controller" in that case? Seriously, it's not all about the made-up hierarchy of roles from MMOs - conflict and combat existed well before their pseudo-balance, and yet we didn't have (in any of my military history classes) any notion of "Defender" or "Controller."

You'd think if these were so universal, that they would have, I don't know, have come up historically for somebody like Sun-Tsu.

[themaque]

cool, you must point out the "human" level wizard then, I must have missed him because all I see is a game with super heroic casters and mundane non-casters.

my point is that if one class is not given any powers NO classes should because either one is better or the other is for D&D no reason to besides incompitence to say that some classes that real abilities and others do not.

It is not incompetence, it is simply a design choice. Yes Magic users break the boundaries of reality at their will using magic. That's kind of what MAGIC is. Mortal people have greater limitations. I'm sorry you feel if that limitation is to much for your ability to enjoy the game. Balanced does not have to mean identical or even that simular.



....I am talking about COMBAT AND ONLY COMBAT when I am talking about roles, it DOES NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST HOW MUCH OR LITTLE I LIKE IT OR HOW OFTEN COMBAT COMES UP. in combat you are at least one of the roles or your useless.

Fair enough, and my point is that limiting the game to ONLY combat is a poor way to look at a game.



then do not trouble us when your feelings. as a test if you have the work "feeling" in a sentence that sentence should not be here.

So this board is dedicated to facts alone? Personal impression and feelings should not come into play? Are you sure these are the same rules you are playing under?




sure full attack is an at-will power, as is basic attacks, most spells were daily's.

4e had a clear difference between at will powers and basic attacks. Now many peoples at wills could be USED as a basic attack, but I don't think that is the same thing. I am speaking only from PHB1, I grant you that may have been altered, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

The vancian magic system could be viewed as daily powers. I would argue that the greater ability to swap them out changes them to something slightly different, but I suppose your not wrong either.



when you say "people felt that 4e was too gamey, so it failed" for example. that is a lie unless you have data to back up how people felt about it, and it is wrong because 4e did not fail.

Serious question, Did I say it failed? That seems harsh if I did. IF that is a direct quote, I should have added "for them". You seem to love to ask me for "proof" and citations but lack the drive to provide them yourself.

No one here is trying to attack 4th edition. All we are TRYING to do is discuss the current edition. That's why this is the 5e boards.

We don't huddle in our little cabals and secretly plot the downfall of the previous one. We don't feel some need to operate some Propaganda or smear campaign against 4th edition. We, myself included, have much better things to do. That includes playing and enjoying the current edition of the game. OR perhaps we enjoy a previous one, that's up to the individual.

So please, let's just discuss this edition, it's faults and it's merits. If I speak of any other edition, that included pathfinder, red box, or 4e, I only use it as a point of refrence.

If I say something didn't work, or something does it better either way that is merely my opinion not a statement of fact. I'm still allowed to voice my opinion and that of my friends expressed to me?



the only person's feelings you do your will ever know are yours.

Am I allowed to use anecdotal evidence or relay feelings expressed to me? I'm not trying to speak for the entire world, just the people I've personally talked to.

[Fwiffo86]

that is why I said combat not encounter.

I understand what you are saying. We are saying that combat is the result of an encounter. Since combat is only one resolution possibility, we are attempting to get you to understand that the encounter does not have to be resolved with combat, and thus "non-combat" abilities are equally useful.

It appears that you are attempting to devalue non-combat abilities by choosing to argue singly about combat. You cannot measure a character by combat alone.



because the first time you throw sand in someone eyes it would surprise him, after that when you go for your bag of sand he sees it and can cover his eyes in time.

I don't need a bag of sand to throw dirt in someone's face. The world is covered in it. More precisely, just because someone can see it coming after the first time, doesn't mean I don't get to try again. The trying again is where the disconnect between an encounter power allowing me to blind someone (save throw applicable) and my character just picking up dirt and throwing it in their face all day long (save throw applicable). I don't like that concept. I don't think there needs to be an encounter power about throwing sand in someone's face. As a character, you just do it. The only rules that needs to be in this exchange are: Attack Roll, Save throw, & Duration. All of which are covered by basic rules of combat. Even the blindness caused is already listed as a basic status effect by the PHB.



and again that logic would equally apply to wizards, they having their powers lined out you stop them from making things up themselves so no one should have powers lined out.

I have no idea what this sentence means. Are you saying that because wizards don't get to free-form their spells, no-one should get to free-form non-magical actions?



you do know that 3e had at-wills and dailys right? spells were dailys, using your sword was an at-will.

Did you read my entire post, or did you skim for things you wanted to argue about? I mentioned at-wills, dailies, and encounters in my post.



and no the classes in 4e were MUCH different then in 3e, so yes everyone has strenghts and weakness. much more then in 3e where past a certain levels some classes ONLY have weakness and some only have strenghts

Two things for your clarification. I don't care about, nor was I discussing the minutia of individual powers. You have clearly stated that the powers make the difference in how characters are separated from each other.

I am referring to the mechanics behind the power. The Encounters/Daily/At-Will mechanic and number of powers available to the characters. Which are the same. I freely acknowledge that powers are used in different ways, and for different things. That does not change the fact that every class has exactly the same number of powers, and those powers are used on the same schedule (1 daily, 3 encounter as an example). Nor are abilities I should be able to do (such as throwing dirt) need to be on this schedule.

My personal opinion is that they designed a power for everything they could think of, so they could fill space in books and sell them. Some people go for that sort of thing. I am not one of those people.

[NotALurker]

It is not incompetence, it is simply a design choice. Yes Magic users break the boundaries of reality at their will using magic. That's kind of what MAGIC is. Mortal people have greater limitations. I'm sorry you feel if that limitation is to much for your ability to enjoy the game. Balanced does not have to mean identical or even that simular.

then the least they should do is admit it in the PHB "fighters are NOT the equal of wizards and other casters, past a certain point you will not be useful to the party, and at almost no level will you not be out-shone by the casters"

and of course with their goals they should at least provide an option to play a fighter who IS the equal to the wizard.



Fair enough, and my point is that limiting the game to ONLY combat is a poor way to look at a game.

I never said that I was talking about combat, and you assumed that meant I only cared about combat. you might as well assume that someone asking a question about how diplomacy works does not care about combat.



So this board is dedicated to facts alone? Personal impression and feelings should not come into play? Are you sure these are the same rules you are playing under?

no all discussion is. there are only two things that will ever useful in any discussion, facts and logic. your personal feelings are neither.



Serious question, Did I say it failed? That seems harsh if I did. IF that is a direct quote, I should have added "for them". You seem to love to ask me for "proof" and citations but lack the drive to provide them yourself.

No one here is trying to attack 4th edition. All we are TRYING to do is discuss the current edition. That's why this is the 5e boards.

We don't huddle in our little cabals and secretly plot the downfall of the previous one. We don't feel some need to operate some Propaganda or smear campaign against 4th edition. We, myself included, have much better things to do. That includes playing and enjoying the current edition of the game. OR perhaps we enjoy a previous one, that's up to the individual.

So please, let's just discuss this edition, it's faults and it's merits. If I speak of any other edition, that included pathfinder, red box, or 4e, I only use it as a point of refrence.

If I say something didn't work, or something does it better either way that is merely my opinion not a statement of fact. I'm still allowed to voice my opinion and that of my friends expressed to me?

not you personal but it is very common to say things like that, or to bring up your personal feelings and assume the world felt that way.



Am I allowed to use anecdotal evidence or relay feelings expressed to me? I'm not trying to speak for the entire world, just the people I've personally talked to.

sure, provide data on the number of people you have talked to, and so long as that is enough to be relevant (say at least a few percent of everyone who plays D&D) then it will mater other wise it is not.


I understand what you are saying. We are saying that combat is the result of an encounter. Since combat is only one resolution possibility, we are attempting to get you to understand that the encounter does not have to be resolved with combat, and thus "non-combat" abilities are equally useful.

It appears that you are attempting to devalue non-combat abilities by choosing to argue singly about combat. You cannot measure a character by combat alone.

nor am I trying to, I am trying to measure a character combat ability by combat alone. I am not trying to say how important combat is in general, nor how often it will come up.



I don't need a bag of sand to throw dirt in someone's face. The world is covered in it. More precisely, just because someone can see it coming after the first time, doesn't mean I don't get to try again. The trying again is where the disconnect between an encounter power allowing me to blind someone (save throw applicable) and my character just picking up dirt and throwing it in their face all day long (save throw applicable). I don't like that concept. I don't think there needs to be an encounter power about throwing sand in someone's face. As a character, you just do it. The only rules that needs to be in this exchange are: Attack Roll, Save throw, & Duration. All of which are covered by basic rules of combat. Even the blindness caused is already listed as a basic status effect by the PHB.

then reflavor it another way, its your character not Wotc's I do not need them to tell me how my character works, maybe you do.



I have no idea what this sentence means. Are you saying that because wizards don't get to free-form their spells, no-one should get to free-form non-magical actions?

pick your logic for having a class having many Fiat abilities. that logic works for every class. there is no reason to have some class with them and some without unless you WANT some classes to be objectively worse then others.



Did you read my entire post, or did you skim for things you wanted to argue about? I mentioned at-wills, dailies, and encounters in my post.



Two things for your clarification. I don't care about, nor was I discussing the minutia of individual powers. You have clearly stated that the powers make the difference in how characters are separated from each other.

I am referring to the mechanics behind the power. The Encounters/Daily/At-Will mechanic and number of powers available to the characters. Which are the same. I freely acknowledge that powers are used in different ways, and for different things. That does not change the fact that every class has exactly the same number of powers, and those powers are used on the same schedule (1 daily, 3 encounter as an example). Nor are abilities I should be able to do (such as throwing dirt) need to be on this schedule.

My personal opinion is that they designed a power for everything they could think of, so they could fill space in books and sell them. Some people go for that sort of thing. I am not one of those people.

do you have a point? or do you honestly think that when a power is used is important, much more so then what it does? you might as well say that my pickup is the same as a mustang because we both have four tires and need gas.

[themaque]

....I am talking about COMBAT AND ONLY COMBAT when I am talking about roles, it DOES NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST HOW MUCH OR LITTLE I LIKE IT OR HOW OFTEN COMBAT COMES UP. in combat you are at least one of the roles or your useless.




Fair enough, and my point is that limiting the game to ONLY combat is a poor way to look at a game.




I never said that I was talking about combat, and you assumed that meant I only cared about combat. you might as well assume that someone asking a question about how diplomacy works does not care about combat.


Look this portion of our conversation here. These two comments directly opposed to one another. I ask about non-combat, you say COMBAT ONLY, then you say you where not talking about Combat. Are you confused? I am.




no all discussion is. there are only two things that will ever useful in any discussion, facts and logic. your personal feelings are neither.

not you personal but it is very common to say things like that, or to bring up your personal feelings and assume the world felt that way.


If you want to keep this civil then don't make rash accusations or assumptions. If you admit that I have been keeping my personal feelings stated as such, then treat me as such. Doing otherwise is unfair. I have made strides to keep my opinions centered ONLY on my experiences.

However, This game is a shared social experiences. Our feelings and impressions ARE important when talking about them. If something works mechanically but has no "feeling" or provides a disconnect for players that IS a problem. This affects public opinion, marketability, and sales. Corporations spend BILLIONS (with a B) to ensure products FEEL right. Look at Apple products. They objectively have LESS features than Android products through most of their history and still outsold them despite often being more expensive do to peoples FEELINGS about Apple.

If you want a pure mechanical experience than I suggest Tactical Wargaming over tabletop RPG's.



pick your logic for having a class having many Fiat abilities. that logic works for every class. there is no reason to have some class with them and some without unless you WANT some classes to be objectively worse then others.

That is not a fact, that is your opinion. Different is not inherently bad. Just harder to quantify. unless you put a provision as to HOW they are worse, then you are just making a general statement without context. Your opinion.

Facts:
The fighter has less powers inherit in the system than the Wizard.
The Fighter requires GM Fiat to be more effective.
The Wizard is more variable than the Fighter having more inherit options to break standard rules via spells.
The Fighter has more actions than anyone else, breaking action economy.
The Fighter can auto-hit more than any other class in the game.

[Fwiffo86]

then reflavor it another way, its your character not Wotc's I do not need them to tell me how my character works, maybe you do.

I would recommend actually reading the entire post you respond to before you actually respond. I will make it simpler for you. There should be no rule, power, ability, activation, for something as trivial as throwing dirt in someone's face. When everyone can do it, there is no reason to make it a power/spell/class ability.



....I am talking about COMBAT AND ONLY COMBAT when I am talking about roles, it DOES NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST HOW MUCH OR LITTLE I LIKE IT OR HOW OFTEN COMBAT COMES UP. in combat you are at least one of the roles or your useless.



Fair enough, and my point is that limiting the game to ONLY combat is a poor way to look at a game.

Do you want to retract the statement below?



I never said that I was talking about combat, and you assumed that meant I only cared about combat. you might as well assume that someone asking a question about how diplomacy works does not care about combat.



pick your logic for having a class having many Fiat abilities. that logic works for every class. there is no reason to have some class with them and some without unless you WANT some classes to be objectively worse then others.

Your desire to have all powers and class abilities equal (in uses, power, etc) is limited to yourself. It is not, nor will it ever be what this edition is about. You got your game. Stop insulting mine.

[NotALurker]

{scrubbed}

[Kyutaru]

I have assembled the six Infinity Peasants, the builder, the native, the guard, the soldier, the rancher, and the tanner!

With their combined powers I have become a true MACHO-MAN!

http://www.comicsandmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/infinity-stones-infinity-gems-marvel.jpg

[themaque]

themaque made the second comment not me.

The second quote has been changed to the proper source. That has not changed the underlying problem of your conflicting comments.

[Gwendol]

{scrubbed}

Why would anyone want to play a one-hit wonder fighter who needs to retire for the day after two encounters. Or that says, "Gee, I wish I could help out here, but I'm saving my good swing for the next fight. Hope you don't mind."

In 5e it is a rare day when a wizard can outfight the fighter. Care to back that up with some facts? The fighter has a narrow scope of application, but within that he is king. Furthermore, the class is general enough to cover a lot of styles, and as such is a prime target for multiclassing.

Edit: Your last point made me smile. The mustang up until the 2015 edition had a solid rear axle, which in fact makes it handle much like a truck.

[Gavran]

Which is entirely true, mmos use discrete abilities based on cooldowns. Identical to the powers mechanics. And my assessment is that this is why it failed with its declining sales being empirical evidence of its failure as a product line.

This is the instance of "4E failed" in the thread. In Lurker's defense, when you're the sole person on your side of a forum debate it's pretty easy to mix up the myriad of people against you. I should also note that any assessment of 4E as "MMO-like" might as well be inherently derogatory*. Even if you follow it with "Though I do like MMOs", the idea has been bandied about and weaponized so much that even as someone who didn't even know any D&D editions by name until well after 4E's release I cannot help but associate it with an attitude of disdain. Probably a good idea to word your arguments differently.

*In much the same way that when you are actually trying to have a discussion and understand someone's point of view, you would not call them a "rollplayer" or, to borrow a disgusting term from a thread in the general roleplaying forums, a "scrub."

Now, I see two main issues here:

1) Caster interactions are "rules heavy", mundane interactions are "rules light." (Relatively.) People have different preferences about those styles of play, and those preferences are not tied to whether or not they want their character to be magical. This can be very easily measured by comparing the size of the Fighter class in page numbers to the Wizard class + the Wizard Spell List. I will note I do not have the DMG and do not know what those "Attack Options(?)" include. I am under the impression they are however accessible to casters and still have far far far less rules text associated with them.

2) Some people arrogantly assume that a preference for "rules heavy" means they have no imagination, and this is where accusations of "MMO-like" get their well deserved distaste. Here I will point out that we are all playing D&D and therefore expressing a preference for consistent rulings on many things, not only compared to Freeform RP but to many (most?) other RPGs in existence. There are many reasons someone might want more rules and I think this conversation will go a lot better if we all accept that. We don't need to have theoretical arguments about great DMs vs bad DMs, we are all playing a game where we paid some people to make up rules for us to play by and it is very silly to argue against someone who wishes that certain character archetypes had as many rules as other archetypes.

---

This is really a side issue but it's on my mind so I'll devote a little attention here anyway:
Doesn't-like-sand-throwing-encounter-powers-guy, I totally get where you're coming from. There is definitely a dissonance there, and while you can make up fluff around it, those situations do come up and having to invent fluff on the spot is dissonant even if the fluff is solid. All I can tell you is that for me, it makes a better game (read: I have more fun) and is worth that sacrifice. If you can't get over it, I respect that. I'm not sure I could get over having to freeform/invent balanced "Power" equivalents for Martials. Though I've yet to play one in 5E, so who knows.

Edit: Just for flavor, I'm a 4E player who looks at 3.5/P with disinterest but 5E with optimism, because I've seen more than a few things that make me think they've at least tried to keep some of the philosophies that made 4E work for me. I am on this forum because I don't actually play all that much and it lets me keep an eye on things to see how successful the edition is at preserving those things. In that goal, people who come here and talk about why they liked 4E better are actually rather helpful - so long as they do so with reason, explanation, and a minimum of edition warring.

Editedit: I'd also like continuing updates from the OP, especially about how the Fighter player feels. I built a Warlock that I think I'd be pretty happy with in play, but then Warlocks are casters.

[themaque]

also facts can never be insulting, if they make you unconformable I suggest you fix that part of your personality.

This is not true. How you display those facts can most definitely be insulting.

If you say "This class is underpowered by my assessment." than you are being honest and stating a fact.

If you say "This class is worthless and anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves" than you are putting a distinct spin and personal opinion on things.

If you say "4e used terms and functions that evolved from video games and MMO's" than you are stating a fact. They admitted this. I have no problem with this because a good idea is a good idea no matter where it came from.

If you say "Anyone who plays 4e is just playing a paper and pen MMO not a REAL RPG" is being insulting and derogatory.

Saying things in such a manner, and then repeatedly saying that other people's opinions don't matter, IS derogatory and insulting.

There is an entire thread on Truth & Tact on the forums going on right now.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?403910-Truth-and-Tact

GAVRAN: I'm glad you enjoy 4e. As I said I played it for a good year, but it just didn't have any staying power with me. I still think it's amazing for a pick up game but not for long term. I think that disconnect was a reason for it.

The fact that martial characters have to be more Fiat heavy is a calculated risk, I admit. In many groups it simply won't work. If you have a GM stuck in the 3.P mindset with a million checks or where everything should be spelled out for you, than no it won't work.

It requires players and the GM to be fairly creative with quick and dirty judgment calls. But that's what I love about it as well. It's SO much easier to do cool things like...

Jump up on the table, Kick beer in the enemies face for a distraction before I slash him with my blade, then leap behind him, swinging on the chandelier, then give a witty remark. I can be big and dynamic.

Can you pull off creative things with spells? Use them in unintended ways? Of course. It's just a little bit more limited at times, due to the heavier rules already laid out.

[Fwiffo86]

sure when the people who made your game publicly announce they lied about it.
EDIT: also when people stop posting misleading information and lies about 4e

Part 1: Why do you even care? You're power as a consumer is to not actually buy the product. You're misguided attempts to get them (or anyone for that matter) to admit to something no one other than yourself believes is a waste of both effort and time.

Part 2: If I have been stating misleading information, please correct me by stating the correct information. You have yet to do this. I make no claims about sales, or reasons for the edition switch. I do not have that information, nor do I claim to. I only state what I observe about the system, and my personal opinions regarding it. If you want to take that as an affront to your sacred cow, there is nothing I can do about it other than point out how unreasonable you are reacting.



I want classes equal, not powers.

And yet you argue to make sure all classes have "powers". Where is your priority? Is it with the classes? or is it with the powers of those classes?



also facts can never be insulting, if they make you unconformable I suggest you fix that part of your personality.

Facts alone are never insulting. But you do not present facts alone. You present facts colored and mired in embellishment and spin, attempting to sway someone with it. Sort of like saying "You'd look really good if you lost weight".

http://imgur.com/gallery/lsOa0Lr

While it is a statement of fact, it is none-the-less hideously insulting. You state your arguments in this way so you can justify to yourself that what you are saying is true. A technicality does not change the fact that how you are stating your facts is attempting to be insulting.

I will point out that your statement regarding fixing my personality is a blatant attack. And is uncalled for.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Closed for review.