As of 6:58 MDT, the 5e forums have 3,099 threads; the 4e forums, 3091 [Archive]

Easy_Lee

2015-03-22, 11:27 PM

{scrubbed}

Monk. In order to play a monk "effectively" in 3.5, one has to define what one means by effective. In 3.5, no variant of monk could outperform a wizard, cleric, or druid. The edition simply favored casters too heavily; that's why tiers existed, as a tool for DMs to use to make sure all of their players were on the same power level.

So while 3.5 has more potential builds, few of them can be said to be "competitive," when competitive means keeping up with a wizard. In contrast, most builds in 5e still contribute in a party regardless of the other members. Entire classes which were not competitive in 3.5, such as monks, are fine now. Hence, 5e is more balanced than 3.5, and thus one can play whatever one wants without feeling over- or under-powered.

In short, most builds can work just fine in 5e, whereas in 3.5 the effectiveness of one's build depended heavily on the makeup of one's party. Therefore, more builds can be done "somewhat well" in 5e than could be done "somewhat well" in 3.5.

Safety Sword

2015-03-23, 12:00 AM

{scrubbed}

Monk.
Ranger.
Warlock.
Barbarian.

xyianth

2015-03-23, 12:23 AM

Monk. In order to play a monk "effectively" in 3.5, one has to define what one means by effective. In 3.5, no variant of monk could outperform a wizard, cleric, or druid. The edition simply favored casters too heavily; that's why tiers existed, as a tool for DMs to use to make sure all of their players were on the same power level.

So while 3.5 has more potential builds, few of them can be said to be "competitive," when competitive means keeping up with a wizard. In contrast, most builds in 5e still contribute in a party regardless of the other members. Entire classes which were not competitive in 3.5, such as monks, are fine now. Hence, 5e is more balanced than 3.5, and thus one can play whatever one wants without feeling over- or under-powered.

In short, most builds can work just fine in 5e, whereas in 3.5 the effectiveness of one's build depended heavily on the makeup of one's party. Therefore, more builds can be done "somewhat well" in 5e than could be done "somewhat well" in 3.5.

You could also define what you mean by 'monk.' Unarmed swordsage was pretty close and did perform pretty well. Not to mention the psionic king of smack monks that could outright turn epic monsters into paste in a turn. But point taken, level 20 monk was really bad. Monk was really a class that was 2 levels long in any serious build.

Honestly, even lousy builds in 3.5 could be fun to play, if everyone was around the same power point. (hence the tier system) What 5e has done is balance nearly all builds in the PHB around the same power point so it is much harder to have an unbalanced party. It is still possible, but you really have to try now. We shall see if that survives the impending splat book support for 5e. WotC is off to a much better start than they were in 3.5, but there are aspects of 5e that are unbalanced so it is anyone's guess as to how future support will be implemented.

Monk.
Ranger.
Warlock.
Barbarian.

Hey now, some of my best characters in 3.5 were warlocks... not warlock 20 of course, but warlocks all the same. :smalltongue:

ChubbyRain

2015-03-23, 12:30 AM

{scrubbed}

Wow that could be turned into a 10 page report quite easily.

Like for all the problems that both have for being Magic Fiction, 5e does almost everything better.

Obviously you can't take entire work versus entire work as 5e isn't all that old yet. But the core rules work much nicer.

Sadly they make the same problem/outcome, but the game up till that point is much better. Also since everyone can be a striker the Fighter can be useful in higher level battles even though the options for the fighter haven't changed all that much.

The biggest change from 3e to 5e Fighter that makes the 5e better is mostly the core rule changes and not changes to the class itself.

The fighter is still lazily designed, but it is in a system that rewards it for being lazily designed instead of directly punishing it.

TrollCapAmerica

2015-03-23, 02:03 AM

I wonder why why people would discuss 3.5 vs 5E when they are pretty much the same camp. It's going to attract the same people and is only about a single metaphorical jump away like PF. It's also a validation that Hasbros WOW simulator was a money grubbing failure

When it comes down to it 5 E is a D&D "patch" that addresses some of the vocal concerns out there and gives a different version we can play. We fans now have the option of 3.5 PF and 5 E depending on what we want to focus on

georgie_leech

2015-03-23, 02:38 AM

Can we please avoid turning this into yet another Edition War? The foul scourge tends to bring out the worst in us, and has claimed many a thread.

Shining Wrath

2015-03-23, 06:21 AM

Shining Wrath

2015-03-23, 06:22 AM

{scrubbed}

Where did I mention 3.5? Threadjacking is impolite.

Name one popular build on the 3.5 threads that can be done core-only.

Person_Man

2015-03-23, 07:44 AM

It doesn't surprise me at all. 4E was the "New Coke" of D&D, 5E is Coca Cola Classic.

To quote myself from a year ago:

In the 1980's Coke was making millions of dollars, but slowly losing market share to a wide variety of diet drinks and to Pepsi, which was sweeter. They did a bunch of market research, and found out that a new version of Coke that was even sweeter then Pepsi was preferred by a majority of customers, but that in focus groups a minority of customers were very angry at the idea of changing their iconic and beloved product. Coca-Cola Co. pushed ahead and released New Coke. Sales initially surged, but then there was a backlash from dissatisfied and alienated customers, which their competitor Pepsi took advantage of. Some customers even tried to obtain the old formula of Coke from overseas, or started protest groups. There was a lot of internal disagreement about the direction of the product within the company, and some people got fired. And eventually they re-released "Coca-Cola Classic."

WotC was making millions of dollars with 3.5, but slowly losing market share to 3rd party publishers and other games. They did a bunch of market research, and found out that a more balanced and standardized version of the game focused on tactical combat was preferred by a majority of customers, but forums revealed that a minority of customers were very angry at the idea of changing their iconic and beloved product. WotC pushed ahead and released 4E. Sales initially surged, but then there was a backlash from dissatisfied and alienated customers, which their competitor Paizo took advantage of. Some customers even started playing old school D&D clones or started their own fantasy heartbreaker games. There was a lot of internal disagreement about the direction of the product within the company, and some people got fired. And eventually they re-released "Dungeons and Dragons" classic (5E), which heavily resembles older versions of the game.

themaque

2015-03-23, 07:57 AM

{scrubbed}

Smaller yes,;but I'm surprised at the statement of less flexible.

Easy_Lee

2015-03-23, 08:13 AM

We all know that 3.5 was imbalanced as all hell, and that every level of casting one build had over another made it indisputably better. I don't feel that this really needs to be argued.

Me personally, I'm pretty happy with 5e's balance overall, except for a few gripes, some of which I suspect will be errata'd anyway.

obryn

2015-03-23, 08:21 AM

I think WotC is probably selling more 5e than 4e based on this single, imprecise measure.
OH NO MY GAMING CHOICES ARE ALL WRONG!!

:smallbiggrin:

In all seriousness, I am not surprised. This is a 3.5 board, and 5e shares most of its DNA with 3.5. I'm actually surprised there's a 4e presence here at all, given this site's orientation.

themaque

2015-03-23, 08:45 AM

{scrubbed}

What's funny is I feel the opposite! Yes, it's smaller, no argument, but I feel it's been made to be more modular than 3.5 was. It's simpler system means making one change is easier without starting a domino chain of changes.

3.5 feats allowed for you to point to specific mechanics saying "look what I can do to make me special" but also backfired in "If you don't HAVE those feats don't bother with trying". Point of Reference: I still play Pathfinder on Sundays, because one thing that edition DOES have over 5e is a sense of real POWER. I'm cool in 5e but i'm straight up a power to be reckoned with in 5e. Just so you know I'm not knocking 3.P because I hate it or anything.

Gwendol

2015-03-23, 09:13 AM

The rate of posting on this board made the catching up with the 4e board inevitable. Never got around to play 4e, but did read the rules and ported keep on the shadowfell to 3.5. It was not a game for me.
I think 5e is off to a successful start.

Shining Wrath

2015-03-23, 10:21 AM

OH NO MY GAMING CHOICES ARE ALL WRONG!!

:smallbiggrin:

In all seriousness, I am not surprised. This is a 3.5 board, and 5e shares most of its DNA with 3.5. I'm actually surprised there's a 4e presence here at all, given this site's orientation.

Obryn, we're all tabletop gamers in a console / MMORPG world. Being outnumbered is a GOOD thing, we're all used to it :smallsmile:

And now, my heavily armored Fighter plants himself in the doorway, yells "Flee, you fools!" to the rest of the party, and sets himself to buy them time against the oncoming gnoll horde.

ChubbyRain

2015-03-23, 10:55 AM

From a purely flexible standpoint I have to say 4e trounces both 3e and 5e. By going from the phb alone (because that is all we have of 5e really, that and some meh half assed handouts).

The reason being is that in 4e, unlike 3/5e, you can change not only what each character does but how they do it.

A fighter swings his sword, a lot, in 3/5e but doesn't do a lot more than that. The 5e fighter is slightly better but she is still doing the same thing, just in a slightly different way.

5e characters are set in their roles unless they have magic. 4e characters have a main role, and then sub roles in which they can fulfill.

The 4e Fighter/Warlord is a big soldier dude in armor that fights. You can be a primary defender or leader but with the added benefit of being a secondary striker.

You can't do that in phb 3/5e. If you are a fighter, no matter you other choices, you will only ever be a striker. Even the EK is geared this way and they get magic.

The warlock in 5e has become a striker/controller whereas in 4e it was a controller/striker. Much more options and flexibility on the controller aspect (at-will were fuuun) than the current creation.

The core two prime casters haven't changed much at all, Cleric and Wizard, can be pretty much anything they want to be in all of 3/4/5 e. But becoming a striker has gotten easier and easier. Starting in 4e and now finishing in 5e, the wizard who blasts is not a hindrance to the team (unlike in 3e).

Does this mean 4e is better than 5e? Nah. But it shows that we have went backwards in flexibility. Instead of allowing everyone who sits at the table to make a character however they want you have a game that shoehorns you into certain roles unless you have magic.

Also after playing 3e/4e higher levels, 5e higher levels are so... Meh. Even with the casters who have a piece of their former glory at high levels it just doesn't cut it. 5e isn't as flexible at high levels as 3e, and neither are as flexible at high levels compared to 4e.

5e has a great core system but by trying to be 3e's little brother it really left a lot on the table in terms of flexibility.

Finieous

2015-03-23, 11:07 AM

5e characters are set in their roles unless they have magic.

The implicit assumption here is that "role" really means "combat role," and of course this implicit assumption is largely appropriate for 4e because that's precisely where 4e's focus is (all of it -- design philosophy, execution, development, actual play). 5e (again, all of it) is instead distributed across the "pillars," and so it makes no sense to speak of a fighter's "role" only in the context of combat. This narrow focus of 4e may have many appealing features for some players, and that's totally cool, but perhaps the last way I would describe it is "flexible."

themaque

2015-03-23, 11:12 AM

From a purely flexible standpoint I have to say 4e trounces both 3e and 5e. By going from the phb alone (because that is all we have of 5e really, that and some meh half assed handouts).

5e has a great core system but by trying to be 3e's little brother it really left a lot on the table in terms of flexibility.

Some really good points, but I think we are using Flexibility in a slightly different manner.

That being said 4e did bring some really good things to the table. Mining MMO's was a good idea. I just think it struck TO hard with it's concept or roles. It's a good outline but when classes where super structured around them I felt more restricted in 4e than in other editions partially because of that focus. That's why some people LOVE it, and I can easily see why. You're not wrong for it. Just not for me. -shrugs-

BUT we have enough edition war threads going everywhere. Like a previous poster said, these boards obviously lend themselves to a 3.P crowd. I think the posting reflects that.

One could also say, the more... open ended approach to 5e requires further debate and thought than a meticulously balanced game that 4e was.

ChubbyRain

2015-03-23, 12:43 PM

The implicit assumption here is that "role" really means "combat role," and of course this implicit assumption is largely appropriate for 4e because that's precisely where 4e's focus is (all of it -- design philosophy, execution, development, actual play). 5e (again, all of it) is instead distributed across the "pillars," and so it makes no sense to speak of a fighter's "role" only in the context of combat. This narrow focus of 4e may have many appealing features for some players, and that's totally cool, but perhaps the last way I would describe it is "flexible."

Except that every game ever deaigned, has roles, and if you can't fulfill any role or you fail at your role then your character failed. In D&D terms the waste of space was popularized in 3e and controller was too. Just becausthe game doesn't mention them by name doesn't mean they aren't there.

Jut like in real life. You have strike forces (strikers), intelligence forces (leaders), rescue forces (defensers), and support forces (long distance bombing to control where enemies go).

4e just decided to work with how things actually work instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

I'm glad that 5e did take the backgrounds of 4e and put it in core, however I'm sad to see its skill system in play (slightly modified).

In re you could pick a role with any type of character and be effective at it (well some exceptions of course) and not be forced into one role. 5e doesn't give you a choice, unless you play a full caster, on what you will do. That isn't fantasy, that is magic fiction. Last I checked d&d marketed itself as a fantasy game. Why can't my character be an effective warlord in 5e? Because I'm not given tools to be an effective warlord (leader), but I'm given effective tools to be a striker.

Here is a 3.5 wizard handbook, look at all the references to roles. All of them will fall into 1 or more categories of Striker, Leader, Controller, or Defender.

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0

The waste of space tries to fill a role but fails at it. They just aren't that effective and won't help the group out. Why? Because they can't effectively control, defend, damage, or support.

4e took what we already had in 3e and applied it to everyone, making the first iteration of D&D that was actually a fantasy game.

So any non-caster class trying to be anything other than a striker is a waste of space. Partial casters such as the paladin, monk, or ranger has some flexibility on this issue as they typically are allowed to be a striker and have a minor secondary role (controller mostly). Full casters can be anything you won't them to be, role wise... And fluff wise... And mechanically too really...

4e is more flexible than 3/5e, just because they came out and admitted there are roles to combat. This doesn't mean they are more restrictive. Better to admit it and work with it than to pretend they don't exist and make classes that are not up to the standard of the game. The standard of the game is said to be fantasy, but how is it fantasy if my fighter has to be strictly one thing? The fighter in 4e include, but not limited to.

Fighter (typical fighter)
Warlord (leader fighter)
Swordmage (arcane fighter)
Warden (divine fighter)

You could have easily, made these 3 other fighter's into subclasses and gave the fighter the ability to choose how they want to play their fantasy out.

Instead they decided to hamstring anyone that doesn't have magic. Which is fine in a magic fiction game, but not in a fantasy game.

They really should have kept the core principal of 4e, place it in a wrapper of 3e, and bring in a new skill system that actually works.

At least this way when I play a non-caster I can play my fantasy non-caster instead of someone else's.

hawklost

2015-03-23, 01:17 PM

-snip-
They really should have kept the core principal of 4e, place it in a wrapper of 3e, and bring in a new skill system that actually works.

At least this way when I play a non-caster I can play my fantasy non-caster instead of someone else's.

Funny you mention it that way. Had they done what you are saying about using core 4e and just pretending it was something different it would be no different for many people.

With 5e, at least I get to play a non-caster the way I want instead of how someone else wants (ie. how you feel they should be).

Many people love the idea that there is a class that doesn't use magic or have 'superhuman' (beyond just general levels of superhuman that every class has) abilities. The Fighter fits that to the T and in every game I have played or DMed in in 5th there is always 1 person who is playing a Fighter and loving it.

charcoalninja

2015-03-23, 02:22 PM

Funny you mention it that way. Had they done what you are saying about using core 4e and just pretending it was something different it would be no different for many people.

With 5e, at least I get to play a non-caster the way I want instead of how someone else wants (ie. how you feel they should be).

Many people love the idea that there is a class that doesn't use magic or have 'superhuman' (beyond just general levels of superhuman that every class has) abilities. The Fighter fits that to the T and in every game I have played or DMed in in 5th there is always 1 person who is playing a Fighter and loving it.

4E has that class for you though, that's the Slayer.

themaque

2015-03-23, 02:28 PM

{scrubbed}

By tactical options do you mean special powers? because operating tactically doesn't require those. If you want "Look at me I'm friggen awesome" powers without magic that's a fair but different request.

Forum Explorer

2015-03-23, 02:36 PM

{scrubbed}

Right now? I'd say that's the Monk.

The Totem Barbarian and Battlemaster fighter are also poorer versions of this. Purely non-magical, and with additional variety of tactical options. You (and many others) just find those options insufficient for what you want. Which is fair enough.

hawklost

2015-03-23, 02:36 PM

4E has that class for you though, that's the Slayer.

Huh, I must have missed that class in the 4e PHB, heck, I don't even see that class referenced on any of the Class lists for 4e at all.

{scrubbed}

Can you show me which of the classes from the 4e PHB has that? Because you could say the exact same thing when 4e came out with 10s of classes from 3.x.

5e just came out, you cannot expect (although many like to demand) that the newest edition have every option playstyle that the previous editions have.

themaque

2015-03-23, 02:57 PM

{scrubbed}

Could you provide a citation for that? I'm fairly certain they didn't promise 30 years of base classes being brought into one book.

Shining Wrath

2015-03-23, 04:55 PM

Could you provide a citation for that? I'm fairly certain they didn't promise 30 years of base classes being brought into one book.

There are probably 60 distinct base classes and over 1,000 prestige classes. That's a pretty big book.

Xetheral

2015-03-23, 11:48 PM

Except that every game ever deaigned, has roles, and if you can't fulfill any role or you fail at your role then your character failed. In D&D terms the waste of space was popularized in 3e and controller was too. Just becausthe game doesn't mention them by name doesn't mean they aren't there.

Keep in mind that while the 4e-defined roles adequately label the range of possible combat roles, it's not the only possible labeling scheme. There is nothing special about choosing to view combat roles in terms of defender, striker, controller, and leader.

Other labeling schemes that are just as "fundamental":
-Damage/Support
-Offense/Defense
-Lethal/Non-lethal/Logistics
-Assault/Interdiction/Force-multipliers

That's not to say that 4e's roles aren't well-thought-out... they're a useful way to look at things. But there are other equally-valid perspectives too.

Broken Twin

2015-03-24, 12:01 AM

Fighter (typical fighter)
Warlord (leader fighter)
Swordmage (arcane fighter)
Warden (primal fighter)
Paladin (divine fighter)

While I don't disagree with most of what you posted, I had to correct that, given 4E's terminology. As a side note, I really wish the game had kept 4E's introduction of the Primal power source. Druids being Divine always sat weird with me.

Malifice

2015-03-24, 12:14 AM

The 4e Fighter/Warlord is a big soldier dude in armor that fights. You can be a primary defender or leader but with the added benefit of being a secondary striker.

You can't do that in phb 3/5e. If you are a fighter, no matter you other choices, you will only ever be a striker. Even the EK is geared this way and they get magic.

A Fighter with battlemaster maneuvers (commanders strike, rally, and distracting strike spring to mind), the ability to size up opponents, the inspiring leader feat, and the Noble background for some 'face' skills seems pretty warlord-esque to me.

The warlock in 5e has become a striker/controller whereas in 4e it was a controller/striker. Much more options and flexibility on the controller aspect (at-will were fuuun) than the current creation.

Theyve shifted from 'at will' to effectively 'per encounter' seeing as they recharge on short rests.

The core two prime casters haven't changed much at all, Cleric and Wizard, can be pretty much anything they want to be in all of 3/4/5 e. But becoming a striker has gotten easier and easier. Starting in 4e and now finishing in 5e, the wizard who blasts is not a hindrance to the team (unlike in 3e).

Hardly changed at all? Concentration mechanic? Only 1 spell of each of levels 6-9 at high levels?

Theyve been nerfed dramatically.

Does this mean 4e is better than 5e? Nah. But it shows that we have went backwards in flexibility. Instead of allowing everyone who sits at the table to make a character however they want you have a game that shoehorns you into certain roles unless you have magic.

There are literally over 40 different classes (when one including archetypes) in the 5th edition PHB. Plus multiclassing and backgrounds. Far more variety than the 4th edition PHB.

If you cant get the character you want from those options, I'm not sure how many you need.

Malifice

2015-03-24, 01:24 AM

{scrubbed}

Who says it needs to be its own class? Thematically you have got a pretty good approximation of a 4th edition warlord.

Maybe they couldnt squeeze every single concept out in the rules (even if most are supported in the thousands of combinations that the classes + archetypes + multiclassing + feats + backgrounds they do give you in the PHB) , but if you want t noble/ face/ martial/ leader type there is an option there for you to do it.

{scrubbed}

So? Spells like water breathing or plane shift don't solve problems. Only a douche DM would introduce underwater adventures or planar adventures to parties that cant breathe underwater or cant travel the planes. Those spells are nothing more than player activated plot enablers that were fully accounted for and anticipated by the DM when he made the adventure in the first place. The only difference is there is a perception of agency by the player, and the spellcasters get the joy of expending a spell slot to do what would have happened via macguffin anyways.

When designing an adventure in the 9 Hells for a group of 4 15th level Fighters, the DM will insert an appropriate story/ plot macguffin (gate, portal, NPC Deva teleports them whatever) to get the players a means of getting there. The players have agency (they can decide to accept the adventure, and enter the gate).

Same DM designing the same adventure for the same party that also has a Wizard 15, anticipates the use of plane shift, and lets the Wizard feel special (and blow a high level spell slot) to get the party there instead of the (gate/ portal/ NPC Angel teleport). The same agency exists as before, but the Wizard has just blown his high level spell slot for the day upon arrival.

Whats the difference?

{scrubbed}

Yeah. Why it felt samey and many people rejected it. I get that you didnt, and you like 4th. Each to their own. I certainly didnt like 4th edition at all.

But then again, I dont post on the 4th edition boards telling people how much it sucks.

{scrubbed}

There are more options for player builds and character designs in 5th edtion than in any other edition. Full stop. Its not even arguable.

Want a Ninja? Shadow monk/ Assassin. Gish? Take your choice of Eldritch Knight or Bladelock for a more Elric of Melinbone feel. Or simply do what every other edition did and multiclass Fighter and Wizard. Or Paladin and Sorcerer. The latter also models a 3.x dragon disciple.

5th edition doesnt do every possible concept in the world. Thats a tall order indeed. But it does support most of them, and it certainly supports more than any other DnD PHB ever released ever did.

bloodshed343

2015-03-24, 02:33 AM

Malifice

2015-03-24, 02:41 AM

{scrubbed}

Why?

{scrubbed}

Oh, I see 'why' now.

{scrubbed}

Why on earth would you waste your time preparing an adventure that takes place somewhere your players characters cant get to (like the moon), knowing your PC's cant get there in the first place? That's utter madness. Youre just creating an adventure that your playing group cant participate in!

I differ from you. I design my adventures to be an appropriate challenges to my actual players characters having regards to my actual players characters and their capabilities and level of experience. If my group wants to play a band of warriors, I am not going to penalize them for making that decision, by then designing encounters that can only be overcome with spell-casting.

Its no different from, appropriate CR/EL encounters. Suitable rest pacing. A suitable number of flying monsters to challenge the flying PC's.Traps to challenge the rogues and so forth. Theyre all DM contrivances inserted into adventures to challenge (and occasionally to highlight the skills and abilities of) the players characters.

On that point, if I want to set an adventure in the nine hells (because its cool or great for the story) and none of my players characters have a means to travel there, I either set the adventure elsewhere or I make damn sure my adventure 'plot hook' contains a way for them to get there - and return.

{scrubbed}

How on earth is that a railroad? The party of Fighters get the exact same choice to accept (or decline) the adventure as the party of Wizards.

Its only rairoading if I push the party through the portal or force them to cast plane shift.

{scrubbed}

Im sorry, which editions PHB were any of these classes found in?

{scrubbed}

So you claim. Try Fighter (EK) 5/ Wiz15. Youre in Full plate, with 8th level spells and 2 attacks a round and action surge. Or Valor Bard for 2 attacks per round and 9th level spells (including smite spells from Paladin).

There are more options for 'Gish' in 5th edition PHB than in any other editions core PHB ever.

bloodshed343

2015-03-24, 02:43 AM

Player's Handbook 1-3 of 4e were all core, so technically the psion was in the 4e phb.

Since most people seem to define Gish as "has both weapon proficiencies and spell slots" 4e didn't really have Gishes, since there were no spell slots. However, the 4e core PHB's did have monk, battlemind, ardent, paladin, avenger, runepriest, cleric, warden, druid, and barbarian as melee characters with magical power sources and abilities, plus the various hybrids/multiclass options, plus there was the Wizard of the Spiral Tower that was a wizard who could use a longsword as a wand and had other melee goodies.

By my definition of gish, which is someone who fights WITH magic (rather than merely fighting, plus some magic on the side) 5e has exactly 1 option for a gish, which is the monk.

Malifice

2015-03-24, 02:45 AM

Player's Handbook 1-3 of 4e were all core, so technically the psion was in the 4e phb.

Ok, well lets put this debate on ice and come back in 10 years after we have 5th editions PHB 2 and 3.

xyianth

2015-03-24, 02:49 AM

Here's an interesting experiment for people who say 4th edition is "Homogenous" and "lacks customization".

Step 1: translate all powers into class features. For example, the rogue power Sly Flourish becomes a feature that let's you add your charisma modifier to the damage rolls of your melee attacks. The Eldritch Strike power becomes a feature that let's you use Con or Cha for your melee attacks and slide the enemy 5' when you hit.

Step 2: Add up how many feature choices the classes get at each level. Compare to 3.5.

What's that? The rogue class in 3.5 doesn't offer any alternative features at all?

"But, what about multiclassing and prestige classes, derp?"

Hybrids, multiclass feats, paragon multiclassing, and paragon paths.

Now add themes and backgrounds to the mix.

Err, what is this supposed to prove? I don't think anyone is suggesting that there weren't choices in 4e. I would argue that there were a lot more possible combinations in 3.5 over 4e, but only because 3.5 was essentially a giant mix and match type system. 4e was much more segmented, you could combine a couple segments together and pick freely within them, but nothing in 4e could even attempt to replicate things like the 20 level builds with 20 different classes/prestige classes of 3.5. Personally, I also felt the expectation that optimization was assumed in 4e further limited the number of viable characters and forced players to ignore their stats when roleplaying. (otherwise every fighter could lift mountains and every wizard was a super genius)

bloodshed343

2015-03-24, 03:06 AM

{scrubbed}

I'm just gonna say that every class in 3.5e used the same level chart system of gaining x feature at y level. Different classes in 3.5 gained different features? Well different classes in 4e gained different powers. "Herp, derp, I don't understand how powers are analogous to class features" That's the point of the experiment. If you translate powers to features, you find that a fighter gets vastly different features than a cleric as they level just like 3.5. The only thing that's different is that the fighter isn't useless when compared to the cleric.

Also: You can build anything your DM will let you have in 4e, same as 3.5. The bard can multiclass as much as it wants to. There's a theme to become a werewolf.

Try being level 20 in two different classes at the same time without variant rules. Try taking levels in a prestige class and a base class at the same time. Try trading one class feature for a feature from a different class without taking any levels in that class at all.

georgie_leech

2015-03-24, 03:27 AM

{scrubbed}

Which werewolf? Monsters in 4e get levels too, with different stats an abilities. You become a leveled "Werewolf," equal in strength to that of PC; the way it's written is the only sane way to make it neither ridiculously overpowered at low levels nor ridiculously weak at higher. Transforming into a wolf explicitly says you're a wolf, you can't use your weapons or spells, and gives you a scaling attack that it leaves up to you to decide what it is, whether biting or clawing or whatever. As you level you get a berserker frenzy and regeneration. Which parts are missing?

{scrubbed}

There are multiple sets of armor that do just that.

{scrubbed}

Or, you know, use one of the dozens of powers that involve shooting various kinds of energy and say it's coming from your hands.

It's fine to not like a game, but at least show the courtesy of decrying actual problems.

bloodshed343

2015-03-24, 03:37 AM

You could let your DM arbitrarily decide, or you could just take the appropriate magic items and call yourself Ferrous Man.

Really, though, if you include rituals and Epic Destinies as well, your character in 4e has a tremendous amount of options to be anything conceivable within what is admittedly a smaller power range. Characters in 3.5 were simply more powerful. On that note, 4e characters are more powerful than 5e characters, and there's even LESS customization and more homogeny in 5e. Every martial gets extra attack at level 5. Most martial pick from the same (or a subset of the same) list of fighting styles. Every half caster has the same spell progression as every other half caster. Every caster has the same spell progression as every other caster. Sorcerers just have a smaller version of the wizard spell list.

Many of the features are just different ways of achieving the same mechanical result. Smite and sneak attack are just more damage. Flurry of Blows and the fighters extra attacks are just more attacks. The dragon sorcerer's armor and the warlock armor of shadow invocation aren't all that different.

Which is not to say the classes aren't unique, there's enough in each class to justify its existence as a class, but it doesn't have the same level of customization as core 4e or 3.5.

bloodshed343

2015-03-24, 03:43 AM

{scrubbed}

There was a "Create Magic Item" ritual in 4e. The only truly custom items you could craft were wands, though. If you had an at-will arcane power, you could create a wand that lets the user use the power as an encounter power. You could also turn encounters into dailies. Because this included utility powers, you could make wands of pretty much anything. Wands to walk on water or fly? Yup. Teleport? Yup. Build a wall? Sure. Some utility powers even replicated the effects of certain feats.

Edit: if you were an artificer, you could make a wand that makes wands.

Forum Explorer

2015-03-24, 03:51 AM

{scrubbed}

And thus you are basically agreeing with him.

{scrubbed}

Again, you are basically agreeing with him. He's basically saying that when he designs his world, and puts devils in, he also makes sure that there is a way to go to the 9 Hells, and back, that's beyond a party member having plane shift. That's it. It might be a portal, it might be a friendly spellcaster/angel that they earned assistance from, it might be a magic item. It might be all of those things. But no railroading is required or even suggested.

But he isn't going to be a **** about it. He isn't going to get a party of all melee fighters, and then give no warning before a squad of kobolds on giant vultures snipe them to death. If he puts a challenge forward he makes sure that the party can bypass, avoid, defeat, or at least survive it. Basically he's going to make sure that there are multiple ways to beat his encounters, including ways that are available to all characters rather then having a instant death trap that can only be avoided by having a Rogue in the party.

Giant2005

2015-03-24, 04:06 AM

{scrubbed}

Eslin, with you being such a 4e fanatic and so amazingly loud that even multiple bannings don't seemt o shut you up, I can't possibly understand how this thread came to exist.
You could happily have several thousands of threads with you just echoing your own thoughts relentlessly and those alone would be enough to outnumber the threads in the 5e section. Yet for some unfathomable reason, you instead choose to devote those threads to a forum subsection that you have less interest in.
the only logical reason I can think of is trolling. The people in the 4e section obviously share your preferences so it would be impossible for you to start a feud there, which means every forum section other than the one that suits your preferences most would be where you would like to stake your claim. Is there another reason why you would want to stalk the forums of your less favored game rather than following your own preferences? It might even be better for you in the 4e section - it may be moderated by different people that don't even know the name Eslin and consequently they wouldn't ban you as often... And obviously the fact that you would be in a group where your views are less confrontational would help.

Malifice

2015-03-24, 04:41 AM

{scrubbed}

No, why are you discussing a class that doesnt exist in 5th edition, as if this is a weakness of 5th edition?

Other than 'you liked them and wanted to see them included'.

Its as silly as me saying: I didnt like 4e because there were no Jedi in it. Or Force power source. Or they never made a 'force power source controller with a mind trick at will power'. And thats why Wizards failed with 4th edition'

{scrubbed}

Lol. Is this how you would design a computer RPG?

The only way to complete the game, is if the player made the right choices at earlier levels or at character creation (play a wizard)? Because its impossible to complete your game, find the BBEG hiding on the moon, or complete your story arc without magic?

And you accuse me of railroading the story?

If you wouldnt design a computer RPG like that (and would hate to play halfway through one before finding out that 'because you didn't find the magic key at level 2 you cant finish the game at level 20') why on earth would you design a tabletop RPG adventure like that (knowing in advance the capabilities of your PC's)?

{scrubbed}

Thats your assumption youre imposing on your players. It is not an objective statement of truth. You are the GM, you write the adventures, you control the world and the challenges your players face.

You cant blame the PC's for being unable to complete an adventure that you have written knowing that they will be unable to complete it!

{scrubbed}

Again, I disagree. If I have a flying PC, then when designing my encounters I specifically design flying challenges (or ranged attackers) to challenge him. Not every enounter - he needs to show off from time to time - but enough to make it a choice for him to fly, and to present an adequate challenge.

Same deal with a high level Wizard. Enemy casters with counterspell, antimagic zones, legendary saves, and even just timed adventures (do 'x' within 24 hours) which force wizards to run around conserving spell slots can be an excellent way to challenge higher level casters.

And the time limit didnt set itself. It was set by the DM to set an appropriate challenge for the party.

{scrubbed}

Lol. Youre talking as if the Devils are things in and of themselves. Theyre not.

In campaigns you run how does a 'bunch of devils' get 'stuff' from the PC's without you as the DM being aware of it, or having narrative control over it? The 'devils' only 'get stuff' because:

1) You put the devils there as an encounter in the first place
2) You made the devils get the stuff
3) You made the devils decide to go back to the nine hells once they had the stuff.

If your campaign is dominated by events like this 'thus forcing the need for casters' perhaps you should consider who is creating these events that require spell-casters for success in the first place?

Cognitive dissonance will no doubt kick in here, but have you ever considered that 'caster supremacy' is not a flaw with the 'system' - but a flaw with how you DM encounters within that system?

{scrubbed}

Youre comparing the options in the PHB with the options in 4th edition as a whole.

Lets have the discussion about what concepts are allowed in each system once splat book support is equal?

By the way, welcome back @Eslin

Sindeloke

2015-03-24, 04:55 AM

Didn't we have a whole thread a while ago about how half of the board's DMs come at the game from a "living world sandbox that the players interact with on their own terms" perspective and the other half come at it from a "theme park built specifically around the specific player characters" perspective and how it leads to a near-inviolable block preventing consensus on game balance?

Whatever happened to that thread?

Forum Explorer

2015-03-24, 05:09 AM

{scrubbed}

And would they have the opportunity to detect and/or learn about the kobolds on giant vultures before encountering them? (Note, the opportunity. They can fail to detect or learn about them. But then you should be working on the Rule of Three, so that it's a legit failure and not you just being mean.)

If yes, then that's fine.

If no, then you're being a ****, if the players have no way of dealing with kobolds on giant vultures.

As for traps, they are actually much much cheaper then training, feeding, and arming a guard. At least realistically. All a trap needs is raw materials and one individual with time and expertise. They also don't tire, don't take bribes, and don't rebel against you. So they are more reliable then guards as well. Guards win in flexibility, power, and durability. So that's why you take guards as well.

Do you design the world so that there is no way into another plane beyond the PCs being a spellcaster, then design a quest that requires the PCs to go to the other plane, even though you fully know that the PCs aren't spellcasters?

Because, by RAW, there are plenty of options to get to another plane that don't require a PC being a spellcaster. Such as magic items, hiring an NPC, or portals to name the most common ones. If you deliberately don't include those things when designing the world, but have an extraplanar adventure anyways, then it's your failing as a DM, not a failing on the system's part, or the players.

Gwendol

2015-03-24, 06:17 AM

Thread de-railing at its finest?

I can't believe the amount of gall heaped on 5e for not including this or that class/feature/mechanic already! It's as if the designers had a mind of their own.

Shining Wrath

2015-03-24, 07:26 AM

{scrubbed}

A base class from any edition's PHB? Wizard. That's an odd question.

obryn

2015-03-24, 08:04 AM

Edition War is hell, boys and girls.

Madfellow

2015-03-24, 08:10 AM

{scrubbed}

You misspelled Scotsmen.

A gish is a character that can wield weapons and magic with roughly equal proficiency. 4e's Swordmage class added the ability to weave magic and weapons into one thing. And yeah, that's really cool, but there are multiple classes in 5e that can do exactly the same thing. Spells like Magic Weapon, Smites, Haste, Swift Quiver, Enlarge, etc. are all available to gishes to help enhance their combat abilities through magic.

{scrubbed}

It can create any weapon and make itself automatically proficient with it. And it's automatically magical, bypassing a common high-level defensive measure for monsters. It gets more health and armor proficiency than the sorcerer or wizard, and at level 5 it can pick up an extra attack. Far from pointless.

{scrubbed}

If that's what you think, then you haven't given either the Eldritch Knight class features or the Wizard spell list a good read yet. Come back when you've done that.

{scrubbed}

The arcane/divine dichotomy doesn't exist in 5e. Magic is magic; the source doesn't matter. Even if it did, the sorcerer would be arcane, so your argument goes out the window.

{scrubbed}

I don't know how long you'll be waiting, but I would appreciate it if you would stop trolling the 5e subforum in the meantime. Thanks.

themaque

2015-03-24, 08:51 AM

I don't think the thread was ever truly derailed. From a certain point of view. ;-)

The very title and first post was begging for edition crusaders.

bloodshed343

2015-03-24, 09:06 AM

I don't think the thread was ever truly derailed. From a certain point of view. ;-)

The very title and first post was begging for edition crusaders.

I don't even know what happened last night. With all the 3.5/4e comparisons, I thought this was the 4e board. Like, for real. I was genuinely surprised to open this thread in the 5e forum and find out it was the same one that had people yelling about 4e being too homogenous.

Anyway, one quick point:

"Nothing in 4e can compare to a wizard bringing a dozen skeletons"

Nothing in 3.5 or 5e compares to a 4e warlord or a swordmage|warlock hybrid. Different systems.

themaque

2015-03-24, 11:07 AM

I don't even know what happened last night. With all the 3.5/4e comparisons, I thought this was the 4e board. Like, for real. I was genuinely surprised to open this thread in the 5e forum and find out it was the same one that had people yelling about 4e being too homogenous.

Are people going to the 4e boards complaining? I don't see the point if so.

and to be fair woopwoopwoop said he wasn't a big fan of 4e either, He just wished that 5e included some of the things he DID like. I personally feel he is so passionate about his DISLIKES that we can't understand what He DOES like, and it feels all negative. I'm sure it must be something otherwise, what's the point of being on these boards?

I myself really enjoyed the Warlord, and there isn't something that really captures the feeling of playing one in 5e right now. I am tinkering with one, but that will be posted in the home-brewed section latter or in the thread specifically about what hasn't successfully been translated into 5e YET if it ever will be.

JAL_1138

2015-03-24, 11:10 AM

Malifice

2015-03-24, 11:17 AM

and to be fair woopwoopwoop said he wasn't

Its Eslin in a new guise. Post ban. Im sure of it.

JAL_1138

2015-03-24, 11:25 AM

Its Eslin in a new guise. Post ban. Im sure of it.

Eslin had a lot of issues with 5e and spoke on them at length...but repeatedly stated that in spite of said issues he had switched to it for his home game since it still balanced better and was easier to run than 3.5. I'm not so sure it's him.

Malifice

2015-03-24, 11:33 AM

Eslin had a lot of issues with 5e and spoke on them at length...but repeatedly stated that in spite of said issues he had switched to it for his home game since it still balanced better and was easier to run than 3.5. I'm not so sure it's him.

Maybe im wrong. Just has the same ring to it. Caster supremacy, lament of the demise of the warlord, DM style of designing encounters that can only be resolved via magic, then complains when only spellcasters can complete them. Join date directly after Eslin was banned too.

Maybe im wrong. Apologise to both of you if true.

JAL_1138

2015-03-24, 11:34 AM

[QUOTE=bloodshed343;19006134]I don't even know what happened last night. With all the 3.5/4e comparisons, I thought this was the 4e board. Like, for real. I was genuinely surprised to open this thread in the 5e forum and find out it was the same one that had people yelling about 4e being too homogenous./QUOTE]

Are people going to the 4e boards complaining? I don't see the point if so.

and to be fair woopwoopwoop said he wasn't a big fan of 4e either, He just wished that 5e included some of the things he DID like. I personally feel he is so passionate about his DISLIKES that we can't understand what He DOES like, and it feels all negative. I'm sure it must be something otherwise, what's the point of being on these boards?

I myself really enjoyed the Warlord, and there isn't something that really captures the feeling of playing one in 5e right now. I am tinkering with one, but that will be posted in the home-brewed section latter or in the thread specifically about what hasn't successfully been translated into 5e YET if it ever will be.

Gonna plug Hytheter's 5e Warlord homebrew again. It's BM-ish thing whose "maneuvers" are all able to grant additional moves on a reaction, don't have a per-rest limit (just a per-attack-out-of-the-Attack-Action limit), allow Second Wind to be used to grant tempHP and advantage, and at 15 can replace all its attacks for party-enabling maneuvers. Came out of a thread me, Eslin, Hytheter, and a few others were arguing over Warlords. I hated the 4e Warlord for verisimilitude-killing aggravations and various and sundry other reasons, but I'm sold on this one. I can't link worth a darn from a cellphone, but it's the "Commander" subclass over on the homebrew forums.

Shining Wrath

2015-03-24, 11:50 AM

I don't think the thread was ever truly derailed. From a certain point of view. ;-)

The very title and first post was begging for edition crusaders.

My actual intent was to make a positive statement, that it appears 5e is succeeding commercially, not to denigrate 4e; I own half a dozen 4e books, I'd play that if it's what my table wanted.

xyianth

2015-03-24, 12:00 PM

Tangent: a "gish" is a Githyanki that multiclassed Fighter/Mage under the AD&D demihuman multiclass rules (acts as both classes, gains XP in both by splitting it between them, leading to slowed advancement). Usually Fighter 4/ Mage 4 (somehow or another; ordinarily Fighter would level faster IIRC).

That's a "true gish."

[/BackInMyDayDagnabbit]

First, +1 to this. The original meaning of gish had NOTHING to do with synergy between spell and attack. If that is what the term came to mean later on, so be it.

Second, Eslin (or whatever name he is using today) has a DM style very different from some of you. I have a similar style to him, I don't create story arcs around the group. I create a campaign world, with individual factions all taking rational (at least from their point of view) actions in the background in which the players are one such faction. I then let stories emerge from the actions and reactions of the different factions. In this style, players do need to cover certain bases in order to be able to tackle every challenge/possible story, BUT they don't have to tackle EVERY challenge/possible story. It is a living world, sometimes the villains' schemes actually pay off. For me, this creates a much more rich experience since the players take an active role in shaping the world with their actions.

The other advantage, which admittedly I haven't used since university, is that you can have multiple player parties in the same campaign world. One of the best ways this played out was when I had two completely separate groups of players that started in different countries. The two groups were unaware that the other group was another group of players, I would just relay events from one campaign to the other in the form of impacts, stories, etc... After about 6 months of gaming, the two groups (in character) made actions that brought them to the same event at the same time. That event was then handled as a combined event for both groups at the same time, and started with literal introductions between the players who had no idea up until that point that the other faction wasn't NPCs.

Now, I'm not claiming that this is the only way to DM or that it is better in any way, but it is different. And it does require that the players be able to handle different situations on their own. When creating a story using this sandbox DM style I will usually create multiple ways to accomplish the same goal, to accommodate different player choices and abilities. It would still be up to the players to locate such methods however.

The thing we all need to remember is that not every table makes the same basic assumptions when playing the game. Certain things may seem blindingly obvious to you based on the way you run your campaigns, but to someone who runs things very differently from you, they don't. To me, non-casters have to expend significantly more effort than casters to solve problems and I have to add a lot more macguffins as a result. To me, fighters are no more likely to have great magic items than any other class.

Additionally, we all have different preferences. I mostly hated 4e, but there were some aspects of it that were handled well. I am sad to see some of those not carried forth into 5e. I am glad however for the return of many great aspects from previous editions. I absolutely love the simplicity of the advantage/disadvantage and bounded accuracy systems in 5e. These preferences will color my views on how things work and should work.

TL;DR: Not every table works the same way yours does. The question 'Why would you ever ... ?' is generally an indication of this. Please do not automatically assume that someone is trolling just because they don't share your viewpoint.

SaintRidley

2015-03-24, 12:13 PM

Gonna just quote myself here:

It was also brought up that the 4e boards went online some time after the edition was actually first sold, while 5e was pretty much up and running immediately.

Worth noting that while the 4e boards didn't go up until after the edition was first sold, I remember a whole lot of migration of threads to the newly opened 4e boards because they originated on the 3.5 boards. I think there was a pretty mass effort to move all the 4e stuff over once the boards were up.

JAL_1138

2015-03-24, 12:26 PM

(Snip)

It's a very old-school DM style going back to Keep on the Borderlands and even earlier. "Here's the campaign setting, what do you random adventurers do with it?"

So is the alternative, which also cropped up in plenty of early modules, "Here's a storyline focusing on this party in particular, with some branching options that can take it in different directions."

There are also early modules that are about 50/50--central plot around the party, multiple background factions that do their own thing if left alone.

None of them is right or wrong, and the reason I reference old modules is just to point out the different styles have been around since before THAC0 was invented.

Person_Man

2015-03-24, 01:00 PM

The other advantage, which admittedly I haven't used since university, is that you can have multiple player parties in the same campaign world. One of the best ways this played out was when I had two completely separate groups of players that started in different countries. The two groups were unaware that the other group was another group of players, I would just relay events from one campaign to the other in the form of impacts, stories, etc... After about 6 months of gaming, the two groups (in character) made actions that brought them to the same event at the same time. That event was then handled as a combined event for both groups at the same time, and started with literal introductions between the players who had no idea up until that point that the other faction wasn't NPCs.

That's pretty awesome. I've always wanted to incorporate more political/faction/Braunstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wesely) elements into D&D. The only problem is that it requires a large number of players in different parties, or players that act more like independent factions and thus might work against each other, which ruins the other teamwork oriented aspects of the game.

Haruki-kun

2015-03-24, 04:27 PM

The Winged Mod: Please get back on topic, guys.

Easy_Lee

2015-03-24, 04:53 PM

Back on-topic, I agree with the OP that WotC is likely selling more 5e than 4e. 5e appears to have had the better launch.

obryn

2015-03-24, 07:59 PM

Back on-topic, I agree with the OP that WotC is likely selling more 5e than 4e. 5e appears to have had the better launch.
Every WotC edition sells more than the last edition at launch. 5e sold more than 4e, 4e sold more than 3.5, and 3.5 sold more than 3e. So according to WotC, this is a true statement.

JAL_1138

2015-03-24, 08:37 PM

Every WotC edition sells more than the last edition at launch. 5e sold more than 4e, 4e sold more than 3.5, and 3.5 sold more than 3e. So according to WotC, this is a true statement.

The big question is whether it will continue to meet sales goals after a couple years, which (AFAIK) is where 4e ran into trouble.

5E does seem to have one advantage sales-wise over 4e in that rather than sending a lot of 3.5 players to the competition, judging by the purely anecdotal and non-scientifically-measured metric of "forum comments I've read enough of to think there might be a trend," it seems to be pulling a lot back.

Haruki-kun

2015-03-24, 08:39 PM

Every WotC edition sells more than the last edition at launch. 5e sold more than 4e, 4e sold more than 3.5, and 3.5 sold more than 3e. So according to WotC, this is a true statement.

So is tabletop gaming becoming a much larger and marketable hobby than it used to be?

themaque

2015-03-24, 09:03 PM

So is tabletop gaming becoming a much larger and marketable hobby than it used to be?

Definitely. with geek culture as a whole becoming more and more mainstream these outliers are becoming more popular. Board games and video games to. You can get Ticket to Ride, Firefly, or Settlers of Cattan at Target.

I think these things are less and less "Geek Games" and more just "Games".

mephnick

2015-03-24, 09:07 PM

So is tabletop gaming becoming a much larger and marketable hobby than it used to be?

My guess is people that grew up with pen and paper RPGs now have more and more buying power as they get older, plus new generations being brought up with it by older generations, which wasn't really a thing in the 80's and 90's.

JAL_1138

2015-03-24, 09:13 PM

So is tabletop gaming becoming a much larger and marketable hobby than it used to be?

I haven't looked at the sales numbers for AD&D and Basic, but it doesn't seem to have quite the fervor it used to back in the old days, when it was getting Saturday-morning cartoons and selling FR and DL novels by the truckload, and licensing 8-bit and PC games by the dozen. The Satanic Panic did some long-term harm (in the town I used to live in, people still believe that stuff to this day), and the rise of more complex videogames and MMOs didn't help. By the time I was playing, getting my start with AD&D 2e in the late 90s and early '00s, it seemed to have hit a real low point in everything but Dragonlance novel sales. My gut feeling is that it's not so much getting broader as it is getting back to where it was in the pre-Satanic Panic 80s. Granted, I don't have the numbers to back that up.

xyianth

2015-03-25, 02:50 AM

I haven't looked at the sales numbers for AD&D and Basic, but it doesn't seem to have quite the fervor it used to back in the old days, when it was getting Saturday-morning cartoons and selling FR and DL novels by the truckload, and licensing 8-bit and PC games by the dozen. The Satanic Panic did some long-term harm (in the town I used to live in, people still believe that stuff to this day), and the rise of more complex videogames and MMOs didn't help. By the time I was playing, getting my start with AD&D 2e in the late 90s and early '00s, it seemed to have hit a real low point in everything but Dragonlance novel sales. My gut feeling is that it's not so much getting broader as it is getting back to where it was in the pre-Satanic Panic 80s. Granted, I don't have the numbers to back that up.

Emphasis added; Everything was licensing 8-bit and PC games by the dozen back then. These were the days where a mainstream video game could be designed, written, and tested by a single developer in less than a year. I wouldn't use that particular statistic for much of anything.