What's the 4e take on 5e?

[Zyzzyva]

I'm mostly a 3.5e player converted to 5e, and this board is pretty 3.X-heavy, so I know fairly well the 3.X perspective on 5e: bounded accuracy (for better or worse), skill system simplification, lack of choices compared to a mature system, caster supremacy greatly reduced, much more reliance on DM rulings, &c, &c.

What's the 4e perspective? I've played 4e, um, once, so I can't really see from that perspective. I'm guessing "way less balanced" comes up, because that's every edition's weakness compared to 4e, but is there anything else 4e people see as a lack? Or as an obvious improvement, or an obvious carryover? (I think skills are much more similar 4-5 than 3-5, right?)

[Kryx]

I'm guessing "way less balanced" comes up, because that's every edition's weakness compared to 4e

4e was not balanced well at all imo. It has a massive amount of feat taxes and some mediocre math. Every class has the same resource system, but that didn't mean balanced at all.

I've played 3, 3.5, PF, 4e, and 5e. I personally loved 4e's take on the power system and giving every class something interesting to do. It had a fair number of flaws though.

5e is really really good - though I'd prefer more customization and have implemented that in my game (split feats into smaller components)

[Zyzzyva]

4e was not balanced well at all imo. It has a massive amount of feat taxes and some mediocre math. Every class has the same resource system, but that didn't mean balanced at all.

I'm going to assume you're not a 4e fan? I kinda hoped we'd get more than one post before the edition warring set in. :smallfrown:

[Kryx]

I'm going to assume you're not a 4e fan? I kinda hoped we'd get more than one post before the edition warring set in. :smallfrown:
I pretty much avoid edition wars, but your post is hurriedly calling for it.

Your statement of it being balanced is not accurate. 5e is much more balanced in my experience.

See my edit above. I loved a lot of 4e.

[Wartex1]

I'm not a 4E player, but looking back at both 4E and 3.X, 5E's greatest strength is the fact that it's simple and easy to learn.

[Mrmox42]

I found 5e to be a huge relief from the boardgame-ish tactical combat system in 4e. In our case, the game flows far more swiftly now that we have shifted to 5e.
From what I have seen, 5e is more balanced, but since we have only played 5e for a few months, I am not the right person to make a formal statement.

Still, I am sold to 5e compared to 4e.

[squiggit]

Not sure the OP really meant "5e from the perspective of people who hated 4e".

From the perspective of someone who enjoyed 4e 5e's biggest weakness is that it massively lacks in options for players to customize their characters. The feat concepts for 5e are a good one, but being so infrequent and mutually exclusive with ASIs kills a lot of the excitement around that system and makes it hard at least for me to play any race that isn't variant human (and I'm someone who generally avoids humans in other editions).

Outside spellcasters, 5e classes feel even more prepackaged than 4e or 3.5 ones did. It's damn hard for me to make two monks of the same tradition fundamentally different than each other and even then meaningful differences don't start showing up toward high level.

Archetypes are definitely cool, but they only really serve to slightly mitigate the loss of everything else and have their own problems because all your options are crammed into each one rather than spread across the class.

Contrast with Pathfinder ( I know we're supposed to be comparing to 4e but still) where you have archetypes AND variable class features on top of that. And prestige classes.

I'm probably in the minority here because I like crunch heavy games and that's what feels weak about 5e to me. I can't sit down and work out a character build because I only have all of two major decisions to make when making a level one character and maybe four or five if I start out at a higher level.

As far as the OP's mention of balance concerns. 4e usually is getting compared to 3.5 when people talk about that. 5e actually holds up pretty well when it comes to balance, at least until high levels and lolmagic rears its ugly head again.

[Madfellow]

{scrubbed}

[squiggit]

{scrubbed}

Only one person is this thread is looking like they're trying to stir anything up...

[ad_hoc]

I'm probably in the minority here because I like crunch heavy games and that's what feels weak about 5e to me. I can't sit down and work out a character build because I only have all of two major decisions to make when making a level one character and maybe four or five if I start out at a higher level.


Class - The amount of decisions here will depend greatly on the class. Tons of options.
Race - Usually 3 or 4 main options left for the class. Could get creative and do something else. Taking Variant Human opens up another big choice.
Background - Trait/Ideal/Bond/Flaw/Special Aspect.

I count at least 3 major decisions with more decisions within them.

Some classes are designed to have less decisions. Some are designed with a lot like the Wizard.

A class that doesn't have a lot of customization is still giving more choice than the class not being there at all.

[ImperiousLeader]

I am a 4e fan. 3.5/Pathfinder is great for players, but I was never a fan of DMing it. 4e gave me a system that I like on both sides of the screen. 4e Monsters were easy to run, yet provided me with a lot of fun. And while designing PCs was also interesting, the main issue was that the bloat of feats and magic items made it a long process.

So, right now, I'm really digging 5e. I miss the monster design, 5e monsters don't have the same quirks and tricks they did in 4e, and having to hunt through spellbooks when running spellcasters is a giant PITA. But, the system is lighter, moves faster, and feels more intuitive then either 3.5 or 4e. I love the background system for PCs, I think the system enables roleplaying better than any of its predecessors. Concentration is an elegant constraint on magical power, it doesn't feel like such a spellcaster's game.

And, while I didn't think I'd like ToTM combat, it is gratifying to be able to run combats in a fraction of the time that it takes in 4e. Even when I break out the grid and minis, it still seems to flow faster.

Anyway, my take:

4e is better for:

Self-contained monster stat blocks
Depth of tactical combat
Martial classes are on equal footing with Magic users.
PCs have a wealth of interesting build options.


5e is superior at:

Faster combat
Backgrounds. If I were to run 4e again, I'd adapt this system into it.
Game is lighter, faster, easy to grok.
Less bloat, and hopefully less potential for bloat. I doubt 5e will ever get the same number of feats that 4e has.
More customizable. 5e feels more flexible.

[Dralnu]

Only one person is this thread is looking like they're trying to stir anything up...

Seriously. Madfellow's posts are ironically the exact ones we DO NOT need.

[Sullivan]

...
5e is superior at:

Faster combat
Backgrounds. If I were to run 4e again, I'd adapt this system into it.
Game is lighter, faster, easy to grok.
Less bloat, and hopefully less potential for bloat. I doubt 5e will ever get the same number of feats that 4e has.
More customizable. 5e feels more flexible.


I never played 4e, but I would have to yes to all of this.

[Naanomi]

I played, and enjoyed, 1e (and earlier), 2e, 3e, 4e, and now 5e. All have been capable of being fun, and all have had their pitfalls. However, I will say that as an older player 5e *feels* like DnD again; largely because of the simplicity and ease of use.
~3e was DnD as a board game, and it ran well as a board game... but like most board games it had a lot of 'out of game' strategy and looking through books for rules to go along with it.
~4e was DnD as a video game, and it ran well as a (simulation of) a video game... but like a licensed video games, it pandered to a lot of bases to please everyone, and in turn lost a lot of the 'feel' of the game in the process. I really wish that there *was* a good faithful 4e rules video game, it probably would have played well.
~5e is DnD as DnD again. Versatile enough to run a variety of game types, simple enough to start playing without a lot of prep work. Inviting to new players; adaptable to veteran players. But most importantly it feels like the game I loved as a kid again. Younger players may not have that nostalgia factor going for them, but it was a big part of the success of this edition for me.

[D.U.P.A.]

To me, a board game and especially tabletop RPG should have simplest possible rules. Video games on other hand can be complicated as the calculations are being done in the background, but on the board you have to do those calculation by hand which takes time. This is especially problematic because for a tabletop game you need friends who can agree to come and only on specific times, finding place etc, while videogames you can play whenever you want from home (skype and roll20 roleplaying is not really the thing). This is why 5e is good system even compared to other RPGs, not only between editions.

However I liked some aspects of 4e. The artificer class was fun (I hope there will be proper class, not a lame subclass of wizard) and I kinda miss Dungeon and Dragon magazines, especially the one with adventures, which were well presented and a lot of different campaigns and settings to choose from.

[oxybe]

I'm mostly a 3.5e player converted to 5e, and this board is pretty 3.X-heavy, so I know fairly well the 3.X perspective on 5e: bounded accuracy (for better or worse), skill system simplification, lack of choices compared to a mature system, caster supremacy greatly reduced, much more reliance on DM rulings, &c, &c.

What's the 4e perspective? I've played 4e, um, once, so I can't really see from that perspective. I'm guessing "way less balanced" comes up, because that's every edition's weakness compared to 4e, but is there anything else 4e people see as a lack? Or as an obvious improvement, or an obvious carryover? (I think skills are much more similar 4-5 than 3-5, right?)

Personally speaking, I've played 5th ed since the playtest and I've started playing the final product recently and to be honest I'd probably pick 4th ed over 5th ed every time if given a choice. Not that 5th ed is bad, just unimpressive. It hasn't really left an impact on me as a whole yet, at least not as much as 2nd, 3rd or 4th ed have.

Now, the things as a 4th ed lover I find 5th ed lacking?

-Early game can still be pretty swingy. Since the d20 is the major player in the "do i hit?" equation, a few bad rolls can easily spell doom for a PC who's got 10-12 HP. 4th ed's 1st level didn't really throw much more at you then a 1st level 5th ed caster, but you had a much larger margin of error. I haven't played or looked into the late game so I can't really say on that point, but early in our 5th ed campaign I was always on my toes ready to run otherwise a bad roll could simply mean "roll a new PC".

-different classes, different mechanics. I liked the AEDU structure, not so much the specifics of the recharge (encounter & daily, i would have preferred per scene and per session, personally). But pretty much every class worked on that foundation. This meant swapping classes was far easier on a player as you generally just had to learn the concepts the class was founded on, but the core was still very familiar. This plays with the previous point, where going from a 5th ed warlock to wizard to fighter can be a bit jarring, more so at higher levels when you have a much wider array of abilities to choose from and you're not especially familiar with how they might interact. Learning to play a high level 5th ed warlock after playing a wizard or fighter is having to learning to crawl all over again as there are new mechanics and concepts involved.

-no feeling of progress, this is partially due to how they used bounded accuracy, but leveling up I don't feel like I'm really getting better. I'm constantly relying on the d20 or trying to manipulate it to do what I want. Say what you will about the constantly stacking numbers, it does feel nice to realize that your character's actual innate skill matters more then the d20 at some point. Luck becomes a factor, not the deciding one.

-tossing the dice is all over the place. I liked having the simple "you roll when you're trying to effect something" mentality: that the player always rolls when they're trying to impose on another in-game object. Sometimes there was a contested roll, but the return to saving throws saddened me.

The feeling of throwing the dice everytime you tried to do something, be it swinging a sword or hurling a fireball at someone, gave it a feeling that it's relying on you to succeed. Instead we're back at a somewhat wishy-washy "i roll to hit, you roll to save". You don't feel like you've hit with your spells, they just fail to get out of the way.

-Effects on hit and miss. This boils down to "damage is boring" and "wasted turns suck". Simply dealing damage is effective, but is pretty boring IMO. "deal damage and change the flow of combat" at least made things interesting by forcing the enemy or players to do more then just simply math their way to victory (in the "i hit X% of the time for Y avg damage and they hit me A% of the time for B avg damage, considering that their HP is Z and mine is C, who will win in attrition without heals? with heals?").

Effects on miss was a fantastic concept because, at least, even on a miss, the game progressed, the combat is a small step closer to finishing. Even on a miss, you feel like there has been some progress done in the fight and it's that much closer to ending. In a game that relies very heavily on the RNG for success and failure, it can be bothersome to see a string of "we all missed"

-Theater of the Mind. It sounds too pretentious. :smallwink: In all honesty I've never really cared for this style of play as once combat becomes more complicated then a Final Fantasy-esque "3-5 PCs on one side, 1-3 enemies on the other, the room/plains is bare and featureless" you generally start needing to keep notes where room features, individual monsters are, players will be asking questions based on distance between allies and enemies, etc... Having some sort of visual just helps. I've been using maps and minis since effectively 2nd ed (though at that time we used legos since we had rooms full of the stuff growing up) and the game assuming you're using a visual aid has made my life just that much easier. I also found it encouraged making combat encounters more like set pieces in a tv show, book or movie, rather then a dull resource grind.

Now, that being said I'm sure there a few bugbears hiding about this cave I've missed... but I'm not an entirely pessimistic grumbler.

I do like that they kept the proficiency bonus concept from 4th ed, as it's effectively just 4th's "1/2 level bonus": a class independent bonus that's based on character level and applies to a wide array of rolls. They've changed how it applies, but it's a nice simple concept that works to measure progression, much better then BAB and the good/bad saves of 3rd or ThAC0 before it. I just wish it was slightly larger among other things.

I like that they kept the smaller skill list and gave every character 4-6 (4 being the average, 5 if you're human and 6 for a human bard). It allows characters that can do things instead of simply being able to climb and swim and nothing else (glares with spite and hate at the 3rd ed dwarven fighter of average intellect). Due to the nature of the game, some skills end up being used more often (perception, for example) but that's just how games tend to be, not a problem just something I've noticed, and thankfully you have easy access to gaining those skills if you want them.

Backgrounds were a neat concept from 4th ed I'm happy they fleshed out in 5th. Nothing else to say on this, just happy it's there.

So yeah. A few bugbears to note but my biggest gripe is that other then speed I don't find 5th ed has any bite to it over other games, and I find that it's combat speed was gained at the loss of interesting and interactive combat.

So yeah I'm still having fun, don't get me wrong, but I can't see myself recommending it in particular.

[tcrudisi]

Disclaimer: I played 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, PF, 4e and 5e. I loved 1e and 2e. I loved 3.x until 4e came out and I realized why we could never get a game to last more than a few sessions (the imbalance). PF never settled well with me after they ignored all their playtesters feedback. And ... I tried 5e but came away feeling like they ignored almost all the good things from 4e and tried to do a 3.5.5.


What I like about 4e (as compared to 5e):
1. So so so soooooo much easier to DM. Monsters are a breeze. Looking up spells? Heck no. It's there on the monsters card.
2. More options. Okay, 5e will eventually get plenty of splatbooks ... but what options are there in 5e? A few races ... most of which aren't very good options. (Contrasted against 4e where you can choose a sub-optimal race and do well.) Umm ... feats very rarely? Backgrounds? 4e had race, background, themes, feats, 4 power selections and probably a few other things that I can't think of atm ... all at level 1.
3. Balance. Yes, 5e is still imbalanced. Just because it has improved over 3.x doesn't mean that it's good. It's not.
4. Combat speed. See, this is a weird one. I realize that its my groups familiarity shining through here, but our combats were 10-30 minutes (with 30m being boss fights). In 5e? Those combats last 1-2 hours easily. Granted - a few factors have changed this and I realize that 5e /should/ be faster ... but its not. I think its because my groups just don't dig 5e as much as we did 4e so focus is a big problem.
5. Built-in flavorability. You were actively encouraged to reflavor things to suit your needs. This made it to where my group was able to run some really weird settings. Futuristic? No problem. In space? No problem. You name it, 4e can reflavor its powers to make itself appropriate.
6. Martial characters have options in combat beyond "what do I swing at". They can even do things like stun an enemy or push them around the battlefield. 5e? Not so much.


What I love about 5e (as compared to 4e):
1. Bounded Accuracy. Okay, so I like how they did the math in 4e -- but bounded accuracy gets the nod here. It's cool. Mostly. But 4e had some simple math errors that they should have fixed with Essentials ... but even assuming those are fixed? Hmm ... I think I like the "newness" of bounded accuracy. Ask me again in 10 years and I may switch back to 4e's math, though.
2. Backgrounds. Amazing stuff. Kudos to 5e for taking something from 4e and making it even better.
3. Advantage/Disadvantage. Such a simple system. So elegant.

The one thing I'd love to love about 5e but it drives me absolutely batty instead:
1. The rules are light. Too light. I'm a strict RAW DM. The other main DM for one of my groups likes to make up rules that suit his monsters (NOT his story, his monsters). This ... ends up crippling both of us when it comes to running a game. Before the DMG was released, my monsters would get Advantage all the freaking time due to abilities they'd have. They would wreck the PC's with this. I was trying to make combats easier and easier and I'd still end up killing a character. Yet the players couldn't get advantage because there were practically no ways for players to get advantage short of a few characters abilities (none of which they had) or by assisting (a terrible option 99% of the time). And when the other DM runs? None of us are sure what the rules would be for this particular combat. It's chaotic. A simple rules system seems like it would be amazing ... and for my group, it just bombed. Honestly - we could get past all the other warts this system has and enjoy the heck out of it, except for this one thing. Give us our rules.


So, there ya go. The perspective you wanted from a 4e fan. My groups switched from 4e to 5e ... tried it out for a few months ... and have since moved back to 4e (after spending several hundred on basic 5e books *grumble grumble*).

And, no, 5e fans. I'm not here to argue that 4e is better. For you, 5e is clearly better. For my gaming groups, 4e is clearly better. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

[Rhaegar14]

The one thing I'd love to love about 5e but it drives me absolutely batty instead:
1. The rules are light. Too light. I'm a strict RAW DM. The other main DM for one of my groups likes to make up rules that suit his monsters (NOT his story, his monsters). This ... ends up crippling both of us when it comes to running a game. Before the DMG was released, my monsters would get Advantage all the freaking time due to abilities they'd have. They would wreck the PC's with this. I was trying to make combats easier and easier and I'd still end up killing a character. Yet the players couldn't get advantage because there were practically no ways for players to get advantage short of a few characters abilities (none of which they had) or by assisting (a terrible option 99% of the time). And when the other DM runs? None of us are sure what the rules would be for this particular combat. It's chaotic. A simple rules system seems like it would be amazing ... and for my group, it just bombed. Honestly - we could get past all the other warts this system has and enjoy the heck out of it, except for this one thing. Give us our rules.


As a fellow 4e fan, I'd like to elaborate on this point and offer my perspective.

Now, here's the thing; I'm happy to admit I'm a little bit of a rules lawyer. This is because I expect things to be somewhat predictable beyond the roll of the dice, rather than (for an easy but oversimplified example) "you have disadvantage because I said so." I expect my character to reliably function a certain way. Now, some wiggle room is nice, and I think what I call "RAWmancy" (super-literal readings of RAW that utterly disregard RAI) is interesting for thought experiments but something that should absolutely get books thrown at a player if they try to use it at an actual game table. But having a solid core of rules is good.

So now we're gonna talk about my group's Friday night session. My brother is DMing, but myself and another player have already DMed 5e in the past, so we both have a decent grasp on the rules. The three of us looked for something like twenty minutes for a rule on whether or not lightly obscured grants disadvantage on attack rolls and could not find a definitive ruling. This is a thing that is gonna come up a LOT and it should not be that hard to find an official rule for it (I'm still not sure there is one). Now, you could say that the DM should have just made a ruling and we should have rolled with it, and in most combats I'd agree with you. But my character ended up dying in this combat. I am perfectly willing to accept an off-the-cuff ruling if my character is not seriously in danger, but you better believe I'm gonna rules-lawyer if the interpretation of a rule will make a significant difference in whether I live or die (and whether the human soldiers in dim light had disadvantage on their attack rolls was a serious factor in this fight).

Some other points I'd like to make:

- 5e classes feel more different from one another than 4e classes do. I am by no means trying to say that just because of the AEDU power framework, a 4e Wizard plays like a 4e Fighter. That's an asinine opinion that you only see from people who took one look at the 4e ruleset and made that assumption without ever playing it. But as much as it contributes to the balance issues, it's my opinion that casters SHOULD be able to do crazy stuff outside combat. 4e spellcasters definitely felt right in combat, but out of combat I found them somewhat lacking, partially because rituals were so prohibitively expensive. Things like the existence of utility spells are what I'm talking about. Also, martials work off different fundamental mechanics than spellcasters again (for the most part).

- 4e classes have much more defined roles. A 5e Fighter might be a Defender or a Striker, a 5e Wizard might be a Striker or a Controller, a 5e Warlock might be a Striker or a Controller or a Defender, and so on. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing for either system. Most Fighters played the same on a fundamental level in 4e, while an Eldritch Knight Archer is gonna look very different from a Battlemaster with a sword and shield.

- Nitpick, but tanking is back in the realm of a thing that doesn't really work in 5e. As someone who's favorite role in MMOs and games with a similar framework is the tank, this is a detriment in my mind. However, if you play with feats (which are technically a variant even if everybody who has played a previous edition of D&D is probably using them), Sentinel fixes this problem to an extent. Still, I'd like to not have to either a) be human or b) be at least level 4 to tank effectively.

- 5e has brought human supremacy back in a big way, assuming both variant human and feats are on the table. 4e hit the sweet spot with humans, in my opinion; a competitive option for literally any class, but not strictly better.

- 5e also puts an even greater importance on favorable ability score bonuses from races because, unless you are rolling ability scores, that racial bonus determines whether or not you can start with a +3 in your most important stat, and 5e's smaller numbers make that more significant.

- 5e does not assume magic items. This is a big one in 5e's favor; a party of 5 characters does not need 15 new magic items every 5 levels to remain competitive (slight exaggeration, but you get the idea). I am firmly of the belief that any character that relies on weapons will still need a +1 weapon eventually to get around creatures with resistance to nonmagical damage, but unless you have decided that your campaign world does not have any magic items they were probably getting those anyway.

These are the things that come to my mind that haven't already been covered a lot by other posters.

[ghost_warlock]

3e was my first love, but I grew to love 4e almost as much (especially when the rules for hybrid classes received some support).

I've been DMing a 5e game for a few months now and this is my take on it (several of these points have already been made by others, but here's another voice for them):

5e combat is boring. Sure, it's fast, but it's lacking in depth. Positioning doesn't matter for most combatants and the majority of status effects boil down to either granting advantage or inflicting disadvantage.

Speaking of which, the advantage/disadvantage system is simple and elegant in its own right, but it's also lazy game design and opens up the door for all sorts of bizarre situations and, honestly, metagame abuse. For example, since advantage/disadvantage cancel each other out and you can't stack disadvantage, people will intentionally enter and fight in areas of darkness (blinding themselves) so they can ignore their disadvantage on attacks from being poisoned. Because of poorly worded condition descriptions, two blinded combatants can effectively fight against each other normally (as if they can see just fine).

By the book point buy results in pretty balanced characters for the system, but maybe because the point buy isn't particularly generous, characters that rolled for stats tend to come out ahead. As such, rolling for ability scores is popular again, which is surreal in a system based on bounded accuracy and limiting the number of modifiers characters can stack.

Pretty much all of the character classes have fun stuff they can do in and out of combat, which is great. However, sublclass division between the classes is uneven. Some get three subclasses (or more in the case of wizard, which has six) while others, such as the ranger and sorcerer, get two. To make matters worse, because there's a perception online that the beastmaster ranger is mechanically weak, most people who spend a little time on the forums will always choose the hunter ranger. Meanwhile, the wild magic sorcerer subclass essentially has to ask the for the DM's permission to use their wild magic class feature, which can really turn people off the subclass.

Speaking of builds and subclasses, several subclasses run out of build options between 3rd and 5th level. That is, you enter a subclass between 3rd and 5th and, thereafter, you won't be making any more build choices outside of feats/ability score increases unless you multiclass. For players that are used to choosing a prestige class or paragon path/epic destiny, this can be extremely disheartening because you feel like the design space for character builds is severely cramped or all clumped up at 1st level.

Back to bounded accuracy - because modifiers to your main abilities are hard to come by, there's a strong pressure to get the highest score in your main abilities as you can at character creation. This much isn't much different than any other edition of D&D, to be honest, but bounded accuracy exacerbates it a bit. As a result, it makes race/class combinations that aren't optimal very unattractive for players with even a casual eye on the numbers. Again, rolling for stats can alleviate this to a degree, but that opens up a whole other can of worms revolving around character imbalance around the table and difficulty for the DM in building balanced and challenging encounters. Personally, I hoped to solve this by giving everyone a feat at 1st level so, even using the default point buy method for stats, a character of any race/class combination can get at least a 16 in their main attribute. Of course, that also opens the door for players seeking the almighty 18 stat at character creation. :smalltongue: Oh well.

Low levels can be lethal, but they're honestly no worse than they were in 3e. And because characters can spend Hit Dice when they rest to heal themselves and have access to bonus-action healing, characters work out to actually be more hardy than 3e characters after they gain a few levels. They're not as tough as 4e characters, however.

Class imbalance is back as you expect in any game using Vancian spellcasting. It helps that spellcasters in 5e get far fewer high level spell slots than they did in 3e, but clever players will always find a way to all-but nullify that problem unless the DM really wants to bog down the game by escalating into an arm's race with them.

Too many spells and abilities rely on the new version of the "charmed" condition. As such, elves and half elves (who are immune to being charmed) have a huge advantage against a large assortment of monsters ranging from other spellcasters to mindflayers.

Building encounters based on the DMG rules is a crapshoot. At low levels, it seems to work pretty well, but past 3rd to 5th level it breaks down fast. The rule that an encounter with multiple different creatures is more expensive for the encounter "budget" than encounters with few creatures is poorly implemented and honestly doesn't really work. I've started ignoring it completely and just building encounters based on the actual XP value of creatures because the party will steamroll any encounter otherwise.

The CR system, as always, is all over the place. Both a troll and an umber hulk are the same CR and the party will easily wipe the floor with half a dozen trolls while they have serious difficulty fighting just two umber hulks all because of the umber hulk's confusion ability. Action denial is a much more powerful and effective ability for a monster than regeneration - no surprise there, I suppose.

[Vortling]

Here is my take as a 4e fan.

After the first few sessions the speed of 5e jumped out at me. Normally our group makes it through 2-3 encounters in a 4e session whereas in 5e we made it through 4-6 encounters in a session. Then I took a look at the numbers and strengths of the creatures we were encountering and came to this conclusion. 5e combat isn't so much fast as it is spread out. The numbers and strengths of creatures we were encountering in 5e matched up with approximately 2-3 encounters worth of 4e creatures.

The other thing that has jumped out at me is that while 4e and 5e are balanced, 4e and 5e are balanced differently. With 4e it takes a look at each class in their role and says, at this level you should have these capabilities for your role be they damage, aiding others, hindering enemies, etc. With 5e it feels more like it takes a look at each class and says, at this level you should have this much damage output with variation based off whether your primary resource expenditure is basic attacks, short rest gated, or long rest gated.

This leads to the main thing I think 5e is lacking which is room for specialization into the roles delineated in 4e. Most classes, with 1 or 2 exceptions, feel like they start out a striker with only minimal room to grow into another role. Effective defending is gated behind several feat choices, leaving you at the mercy of the DMs target selection to allow you to fill that role prior to level 8 for most classes. Leading and controlling are primarily gated behind both the concentration mechanic and the long rest within spellcasting. In summary I feel that the sort of things I could do at level 1 in 4e as a Cleric or Wizard just for being a Cleric or Wizard are things that in 5e I have to spend significant character creation options to be able to accomplish and only at a much higher level than in 4e.

Overall I am enjoying my experience with 5e, but given the choice I would definitely go back to 4e.

[squiggit]

Too much stuff to quote reply to, so just a few bullet points

Balance Way better than 3.5 and in combat generally pretty good. Out of combat I feel has the same trouble where caster options outweigh everything else anyone can do and unskilled martial characters in particular struggle to have an identity. This feels very regressive toward 3.5's flaws.

4e wasn't perfect there either though, basically going the other way and removing noncombat options from consideration for the most part.

Races It's sort of odd, because getting your accuracy high was one of the most important things you can do in 4e. But I've found it a lot harder to justify playing an off-race in 5e unless I'm rolling stats and rolled really well. Even playing characters with penalties. The hasty shift away from racial powers as a reaction to 4e makes races also feel a lot less interesting to me. Some of them were pretty abusable (elven accuracy) but they also gave the races a lot more flavor in my opinion.

Customization Already mentioned my thoughts on races. Then you get a background with a few options. Then you get a class. And then you're done. Beyond grumbling about first level. Feats every 4 levels and exclusive with ASIs cuts down on your options a lot. Basically you're either a class with moving parts build in (read: spellcaster) or you're going to look identical to everyone who plays the same archetype until maybe 12.

Combat Fast and elegant but agree with above posters about it being kind of dull. Unless you're a spellcaster then you can juggle spell slots 3.5 style for stuff to do. Mechanics are trimmed down to 3.5 levels but you have less knobs to play with than you did in 3.5

Magic Basically every complaint I've had is hit with the caveat "unless you're a spellcaster". Which I think is a far more fundamental problem with 5e. 4e might have gone too far with homogenizing classes into a standardized system, but I feel like 5e reacts too hard to that and we end up back in this 3.5ish land where spellcasters get things no one else does just because magic... but it's not a two way street.

Balance is much better and I only see issues outside combat and at high levels. So kudos there, but mechanics are another thing. I'm not really a fan of the "only spellcasters get to customize" approach here.


I really wish that there *was* a good faithful 4e rules video game, it probably would have played well.
It's kind of ironic that the most video-gamey edition of D&D has one of the least faithful video game adaptations. Not sure how they managed that.

[DixieDevil]

I played, and enjoyed, 1e (and earlier), 2e, 3e, 4e, and now 5e. All have been capable of being fun, and all have had their pitfalls. However, I will say that as an older player 5e *feels* like DnD again; largely because of the simplicity and ease of use.
~3e was DnD as a board game, and it ran well as a board game... but like most board games it had a lot of 'out of game' strategy and looking through books for rules to go along with it.
~4e was DnD as a video game, and it ran well as a (simulation of) a video game... but like a licensed video games, it pandered to a lot of bases to please everyone, and in turn lost a lot of the 'feel' of the game in the process. I really wish that there *was* a good faithful 4e rules video game, it probably would have played well.
~5e is DnD as DnD again. Versatile enough to run a variety of game types, simple enough to start playing without a lot of prep work. Inviting to new players; adaptable to veteran players. But most importantly it feels like the game I loved as a kid again. Younger players may not have that nostalgia factor going for them, but it was a big part of the success of this edition for me.

There's a lot of good points in this thread, but this is the post I most agree with.

I never could get into 4e because of the video gameish feel to it. Everything seemed so centered on crunch, when I'm more of a fluff guy.

As far as 5e goes, it made me feel as if I was reading the 2e rulebook with some features brought over from 3.5

Those are my two favorite systems, so I'm assuming I'm going to like this system. That being said, I've yet to play it, so it may not be so great in execution.

[T.G. Oskar]

Personally speaking, I've played 5th ed since the playtest and I've started playing the final product recently and to be honest I'd probably pick 4th ed over 5th ed every time if given a choice. Not that 5th ed is bad, just unimpressive. It hasn't really left an impact on me as a whole yet, at least not as much as 2nd, 3rd or 4th ed have.

Everyone is impacted in a different way.


-Early game can still be pretty swingy. Since the d20 is the major player in the "do i hit?" equation, a few bad rolls can easily spell doom for a PC who's got 10-12 HP. 4th ed's 1st level didn't really throw much more at you then a 1st level 5th ed caster, but you had a much larger margin of error. I haven't played or looked into the late game so I can't really say on that point, but early in our 5th ed campaign I was always on my toes ready to run otherwise a bad roll could simply mean "roll a new PC".

Most of all D&D editions tend to have the characters' first levels as their deadliest. Any hit can be lethal. Earlier editions' reliance on low HP made the lethality constant in nearly all regards. 4e went with a more "heroic" approach (in the sense of "larger than life", where your characters are already expected to be masters at their trade), so there was a margin for error - the difference between the classes' numbers was mostly their ability scores and their proficiencies. 5e, in a way, recognizes that the first three levels of the character are their "foundation" levels - they break that in terms of spellcasters, but the bulk of all classes get their subclasses at 3rd level because of this, and the amount of XP you need to level up is likewise lower; consider 300 or 900 XP to level up (specifically, 300 XP to level up to 2nd, 600 additional XP to level up to 3rd) to a whopping 2,700 XP (a difference of 1,800, which is pretty much three times what you need to level up to 3rd level in the first place). There is little margin for error in those first two levels, but once you get to third, the class features you get and the amount of HP is enough to let you survive a few battles, which in the end serves as a form of "graduation".

But again - some people actually like that "being on edge" level of challenge early on.


-different classes, different mechanics. I liked the AEDU structure, not so much the specifics of the recharge (encounter & daily, i would have preferred per scene and per session, personally). But pretty much every class worked on that foundation. This meant swapping classes was far easier on a player as you generally just had to learn the concepts the class was founded on, but the core was still very familiar. This plays with the previous point, where going from a 5th ed warlock to wizard to fighter can be a bit jarring, more so at higher levels when you have a much wider array of abilities to choose from and you're not especially familiar with how they might interact. Learning to play a high level 5th ed warlock after playing a wizard or fighter is having to learning to crawl all over again as there are new mechanics and concepts involved.

Some people really like the perception of distinct mechanics, because of familiarity.

Think of what made so many people shun the Tome of Battle supplement for 3rd Edition - typically, "animu weeaboo magic" comes to mind, but behind that lies the idea that most people didn't like the similarity of the mechanics to spellcasting. Martial Adepts play VERY distinct to Spellcasters, in that maneuvers are most of the time specific to melee attacks, have their own methods of recharge and end up doing less at the same level than a typical spell, specifically since maneuvers are heavily combat-aspected. Now, consider that the AEDU framework standardizes how class features beyond 1st level (barring Essentials classes) are acquired, and you can figure why people might have shunned 4e in the first place - everything t feels so sterilized to a same chassis, that it clashes with the perception of the class earlier on.

Certainly, there are some differences between the classes, but they are only perceived in the same way one perceives the system of Incarnum (a shame that the system wasn't revisited in 4e and probably will be the same in 5th) - only by delving into the powers themselves, and watching how the different classes do their expected job, you can notice the differences. A Fighter does its job of tanking differently than a Paladin does - they both mark, but the way they exploit their mark to fulfill their task differs (Fighters do Lockdown, Paladins punish the mark, Swordmages have up to three ways to punish the marked which include boosting defense, hindering the target or teleporting and making an attack). This is, in a way, what Rhaegar14 mentions when he says that the conception of similar classes is an "asinine opinion" (and I feel that was a bit unwarranted; asinine as it may seem, it can still be valid) - classes do their task in a different way, but it's very subtle. All Defenders mark, for example, and all Strikers do a lot of damage - the method may vary, but the end result is ALWAYS the same. That the Fighter can also deal a lot of damage and the Paladin doesn't because it provides a few buffs is what, in the end, distinguishes them.

However, this posits a challenge to your point: is it really THAT easy to switch between classes? Going with the specific mentality of one class can cause problems when switching to another. For example: a Paladin, used to off-buffing and single-target marking has to switch its perceptions when switching to a Fighter, which lacks many off-buffing powers but has a lot of powers that simply add to the damage (plus its mark is done with every attack, therefore it has to deal with more opponents at once; moreso if the Paladin doesn't use AoE powers that impose Divine Sanction to all enemies within the area), or to a Warden, whose powers often involve more self-buffing via Guardian forms. All three classes require a different set of feats and magic items to approach their function (Paladins do well by stacking punishment through their marks, Fighters do well by increasing their damage). It's not easy, but the presence of the AEDU framework does smooth the transition.

For 5e to retain that ease of "switch" between classes (and therefore, builds), it would have had to make a compromise. Their focus differed, approaching that of other editions where classes were obviously different. There are ways in which one class can approach the functionality of another - Eldritch Knight Fighters and Arcane Trickster Rogues use the same spellcasting rules as Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers and Wizards. Even Warlocks use the same rules, except their powers are more "encounter-based" and scale automatically. On the other hand, Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Monks and Rangers use the same combat rules between each other, particularly in the area of Extra Attacks (Monks, much like Warlocks, distinguish in the way they gain Extra Attacks, but otherwise are similar in that regard). To older fans, it appeals to their suite of tricks - Fighters that prefer simplicity (and that might prefer the Knight or Slayer as they're quite simple in their construction, were they to play 4e) might prefer the Champion, while those that preferred gishing have the Eldritch Knight at their disposal. 3e, 4e and 5e Barbarians rage, but the method of Rage in 3e and 5e are quite similar: add damage, no questions asked (that said, 3e Rage was more useful out of combat, whereas 5e Rage is better IN-combat. The learning curve WILL differ, but IMO, not as drastically - that said, the way a player can grok the mechanics and the nuances of each class will differ, and they can alter how fast a player can adapt between classes.


-no feeling of progress, this is partially due to how they used bounded accuracy, but leveling up I don't feel like I'm really getting better. I'm constantly relying on the d20 or trying to manipulate it to do what I want. Say what you will about the constantly stacking numbers, it does feel nice to realize that your character's actual innate skill matters more then the d20 at some point. Luck becomes a factor, not the deciding one.

I feel the same about 4e, in as much as I'm acquainting with it.

4e's 1/2 level progression for just about everything (of course, not damage or HP, but attack rolls, all defenses and all skills do) is functionally similar to 5e's proficiency bonus - it keeps numbers at a certain threshold. Feats and magic items boost that, but up to a certain top. 4e is actually a bounded accuracy system in a way - the difference is the amount and the range. A character can definitely have an AC in the range of 50 by the end of the campaign or higher, but you can say with almost complete certainty that you won't have more than 55 AC, and you can approach 50 ONLY with the correct build and set-up. Same thing for Defenses (also approaching 50), weapon attack (40-45) and implement attack (<40). Even ability scores are bound - you can't get an ability score higher than 30, because there are no ways to increase your scores other than via leveling up.

By removing that bonus, the only thing that boosts your numbers are feats, magic items and ability score boosts - other than feats, as they're optional, the same thing happens with 5e. What distinguishes each system is what they get through class features, and that, again, is a matter of perception. There IS one thing that does make for a distinction - 4e is a base bonus, whereas 5e is a proficiency bonus; if you don't have the proficiency, you don't apply the bonus, which makes certain skills and tactics pointless after a certain level (compared to 4e, where you could still reach a certain degree of success with skills with 1/2 level bonus + item + ability score alone). In that regard, someone who has played 4e might (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) perceive 5e as granting no "progress" for the character. Players of earlier editions have also noticed this (particularly with 3.PF players, and also some 2e players). On the other hand, what you get from class features is quite distinctive: a fighter almost always gets something new that isn't just number-based. The ability to make another action in the same turn is something a Fighter has never been able to do on its own (barring magic items), for example. That alone is a massive instance of progression: a 2nd level Fighter can do stuff that a 1st level Fighter cannot, but likewise a 11th level Fighter (which has three attacks) can do stuff that the 2nd Fighter cannot. That the numbers don't reflect that doesn't mean the Fighter isn't progressing at all.


-tossing the dice is all over the place. I liked having the simple "you roll when you're trying to effect something" mentality: that the player always rolls when they're trying to impose on another in-game object. Sometimes there was a contested roll, but the return to saving throws saddened me.

The feeling of throwing the dice everytime you tried to do something, be it swinging a sword or hurling a fireball at someone, gave it a feeling that it's relying on you to succeed. Instead we're back at a somewhat wishy-washy "i roll to hit, you roll to save". You don't feel like you've hit with your spells, they just fail to get out of the way.

Another point where perception matters. Some people just don't like having Fortitude, Reflex and Will defenses, where a lucky roll of the enemy overpowers you. Sometimes, people just want to have something they know it'll work (in theory), and that they don't need to roll for.

It'd be really easy to say "why not turn saving throws into Defenses?" and relay it to homebrew, but that doesn't really solve it (unless a future Unearthed Arcana handles that?) However, for all the people that consider that rolling to hit against Defenses is great, there's other people who don't. Apparently so (coming from a system that purports to have been built via playtesting and surveys), the majority prefers saving throws.


-Effects on hit and miss. This boils down to "damage is boring" and "wasted turns suck". Simply dealing damage is effective, but is pretty boring IMO. "deal damage and change the flow of combat" at least made things interesting by forcing the enemy or players to do more then just simply math their way to victory (in the "i hit X% of the time for Y avg damage and they hit me A% of the time for B avg damage, considering that their HP is Z and mine is C, who will win in attrition without heals? with heals?").

Effects on miss was a fantastic concept because, at least, even on a miss, the game progressed, the combat is a small step closer to finishing. Even on a miss, you feel like there has been some progress done in the fight and it's that much closer to ending. In a game that relies very heavily on the RNG for success and failure, it can be bothersome to see a string of "we all missed"

This I can wholeheartedly agree with. Even 3e had rider effects (what you call "effects on a hit") and the suck portion of "no save, just suck" - spells like Fear could still cause an effect even if the saving throw succeeded. That said - at to what extent 4e worked that...

Let's go for At-Wills. There you can see a "Hit: Do X" effect, almost every time. This is a given - At-Wills are designed to do something other than damage, and the "Hit: Do X" bits are what distinguish every power. Some are subtle (don't have anything on their Hit section other than "1[W] + key ability modifier; change to 2[W] + key ability modifier at 21st level", which is what a Melee/Ranged Basic Attack does; that said, they still have something different, like "Attack: KAM +2 vs. AC/Fort/Ref/Will"), some are obvious ("Hit: 1[W] + key ability modifier, and shift 1 square"), but they were different than MBA/RBA. Few, if any, had something they could do on a miss, though. Encounters, Dailies and Utilities had that "Miss: Do X" tidbit, but they were still considerable.

5e still has some of these effects, but they're more subtle. Battlemaster Fighters all have effects that are functionally similar to "Hit: Do X" with their maneuvers: a maneuver like Tripping Attack could easily be rewritten as "Hit: 1[W] + 1d8 + Strength, and enemy is knocked prone". Same with some spells (Paladin spell-based smites come to mind, and are examples of the influence of 4e in 5e design, as Paladin smites were, from 3e where they emerged, daily class features with no riders other than a boost to-hit). They're not as obvious, but they're still there.


-Theater of the Mind. It sounds too pretentious. :smallwink: In all honesty I've never really cared for this style of play as once combat becomes more complicated then a Final Fantasy-esque "3-5 PCs on one side, 1-3 enemies on the other, the room/plains is bare and featureless" you generally start needing to keep notes where room features, individual monsters are, players will be asking questions based on distance between allies and enemies, etc... Having some sort of visual just helps. I've been using maps and minis since effectively 2nd ed (though at that time we used legos since we had rooms full of the stuff growing up) and the game assuming you're using a visual aid has made my life just that much easier. I also found it encouraged making combat encounters more like set pieces in a tv show, book or movie, rather then a dull resource grind.

The DMG has a pretty hefty section on using minis, and even the PHB mentions them in passing. Many rules work on those guidelines. However, TotM was designed with old-school roleplayers in mind, who didn't use a grid-based map...or any map at all. That said, rather than pretentious (it's promoted, but only because it requires more explanation than something like grid-based combat which you can expect just about anyone to grok easily), I find TotM to rely more on improvisation, and thus it requires a different toolset.


Now, that being said I'm sure there a few bugbears hiding about this cave I've missed... but I'm not an entirely pessimistic grumbler.

I do like that they kept the proficiency bonus concept from 4th ed, as it's effectively just 4th's "1/2 level bonus": a class independent bonus that's based on character level and applies to a wide array of rolls. They've changed how it applies, but it's a nice simple concept that works to measure progression, much better then BAB and the good/bad saves of 3rd or ThAC0 before it. I just wish it was slightly larger among other things.

I like that they kept the smaller skill list and gave every character 4-6 (4 being the average, 5 if you're human and 6 for a human bard). It allows characters that can do things instead of simply being able to climb and swim and nothing else (glares with spite and hate at the 3rd ed dwarven fighter of average intellect). Due to the nature of the game, some skills end up being used more often (perception, for example) but that's just how games tend to be, not a problem just something I've noticed, and thankfully you have easy access to gaining those skills if you want them.

Backgrounds were a neat concept from 4th ed I'm happy they fleshed out in 5th. Nothing else to say on this, just happy it's there.

So yeah. A few bugbears to note but my biggest gripe is that other then speed I don't find 5th ed has any bite to it over other games, and I find that it's combat speed was gained at the loss of interesting and interactive combat.

So yeah I'm still having fun, don't get me wrong, but I can't see myself recommending it in particular.

The proficiency bonus, and specifically the smaller skill set, are indications of an evolving ruleset. It's pretty obvious that having a name for every possible application of a skill was too ludicrous. Some skills were turned into tools (Disable Device/Open Lock, or 4e's Thievery, was shifted into Thieves' Tools because you almost always rely on them), while others were just left to background fluff (almost all Profession skills). There is a good possibility to work on that regard (I personally like the idea of wide skills encompassing various specializations, where the skill determines your overall talent at executing it whereas the specialization merely grants a suitable bonus), but as it stands, it's good.

Now, as for Backgrounds...I beg to differ. I've seen 4e Backgrounds, and they're pretty similar to what 3e considered as "backgrounds" (or at least, regional backgrounds from the Forgotten Realms). Here I believe that the lesson was learned, of all places, from d20 Modern. Backgrounds ARE like Occupations - access to class skills, certain proficiencies and whatnot, and some money replacing the Wealth bonus, plus a roleplaying feature pretty similar to Reputation. If anything, they're also closer to 4e themes.


What I like about 4e (as compared to 5e):
1. So so so soooooo much easier to DM. Monsters are a breeze. Looking up spells? Heck no. It's there on the monsters card.

I find 5e far easier to DM, but I've never DMed 4e so it's not like I can confirm it. That said - the ONLY thing that you need to look at are the spells, and the recent PDFs let you check things up just by looking at the Basic Rules or the PDF relevant to the adventure path. That said - other than spells, pretty much everything you need is on the stat block. Particularly the Legendary and Lair actions.


2. More options. Okay, 5e will eventually get plenty of splatbooks ... but what options are there in 5e? A few races ... most of which aren't very good options. (Contrasted against 4e where you can choose a sub-optimal race and do well.) Umm ... feats very rarely? Backgrounds? 4e had race, background, themes, feats, 4 power selections and probably a few other things that I can't think of atm ... all at level 1.

Options are relative. A 1st level character will have, by definition, Race/Class/Background, and at times Subclass. Race has Subrace every now and then: a Wood Elf plays differently from a High Elf plays differently from a Drow Elf plays differently from an Eladrin. All Classes have Subclasses. Backgrounds are mutable - some Backgrounds have variants, in fact, and the PHB encourages you to change some of the aspects of each background. Those spellcasting classes also have spell choices.

There's one thing you've mentioned, though - 5e is only starting to mature. There's still no first official splatbook - the first supplementary, all-new material was the Elemental Evil Player's Companion, and it's only bit more than 6 months since its release. That said, what it contains WITHIN the Core Rulebooks is more varied than on earlier editions. Sure, the Eldritch Knight is no Swordmage, but it's a core option for the Fighter (same as Fighter/spellcaster multiclassing, though MCing is optional). The Totem Warrior Primal Path Barbarian plays very differently from a Berserker Primal Path Barbarian, and even distinct to each other; Bear Totem Barbarian plays very distinct to Eagle Totem Barbarian, even though they share many class features. Backgrounds allow for a different focus, or a complement of talents to assist the group. If there's anything I can say is that, while 4e detractors might be wrong in saying that 4e classes are identical (and even then, the opinion is valid), 5e detractors claim that there's no wealth of options when making characters, which is likewise wrong (and even then, just as valid).


3. Balance. Yes, 5e is still imbalanced. Just because it has improved over 3.x doesn't mean that it's good. It's not.

I ascribe to "Perfect Imbalance". The ideal game shouldn't be perfectly balanced; rather, it should be imbalanced, but in such a way where the options within the system end up striking a degree of balance. I often refer to Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 when I refer to "perfect imbalance"; the game is unbalanced to all hell (Cable/Sentinel/Magneto are, AFAICR, god-tier), but knowledge of the system allows even a bottom-tier to surprise in competitive gaming. The difference is, of course, that D&D isn't a competitive game, but a collaborative one - the imbalance of one character can be solved through application of system mastery or alleviated through the efforts of others. The idea is that specialization should be a way in which you excel, not a way in which you make ends meet. And, for what it's worth: I consider 4e imbalanced, in that you need to choose certain things to approach a certain threshold just to be competitive at what you do. It's not funny when a Slayer Fighter that has only chosen a few parts of its build can outdo a PHB Paladin on its own turf (defenses, HP). Not funny. That doesn't strike me as balanced, particularly when the Paladin has to struggle a lot to meet those thresholds AND have its tricks work. However, that is something I can ascribe to system mastery, or the lack of it.


4. Combat speed. See, this is a weird one. I realize that its my groups familiarity shining through here, but our combats were 10-30 minutes (with 30m being boss fights). In 5e? Those combats last 1-2 hours easily. Granted - a few factors have changed this and I realize that 5e /should/ be faster ... but its not. I think its because my groups just don't dig 5e as much as we did 4e so focus is a big problem.

I find it the opposite, but my game is still at around 3rd level. The longest battle I had was a 4-parter, which took about 2 hours (maybe a bit more), and the last part was the longest if only because of one rules dispute (which was resolved quite easily, in fact) and because of a spellcaster. A similar battle on an earlier session didn't last as long. That said, those were meant to be big battles. Big battles being slow isn't really a problem. Random encounters, though, are handled pretty easily.


5. Built-in flavorability. You were actively encouraged to reflavor things to suit your needs. This made it to where my group was able to run some really weird settings. Futuristic? No problem. In space? No problem. You name it, 4e can reflavor its powers to make itself appropriate.

I...don't agree with that. Note that it's personal experience, but one of my players refluffed its Barbarian to work as a "Jekyll/Hyde - the Witcher" feel, and it doesn't feel out of character at all. That said, if it's actual refluffing of things, the PHB actually encourages you to refluff the backgrounds, and in fact, it does so right on the Player's Handbook. With the Alien/Futuristic weapons section in the DMG and the Modern Armor article released recently, I believe they're still encouraging refluffing.


6. Martial characters have options in combat beyond "what do I swing at". They can even do things like stun an enemy or push them around the battlefield. 5e? Not so much.

Uh...what? Of course Martial Characters can do options in combat beyond swinging! Just from the PHB, they can Grapple or Shove, and Shove provides pushing and knocking prone. You can do it as part of the Attack action, by sacrificing one or more of your attacks. Considering that only a few powers allowed you to attack more than once, it's more impromptu. Go to the DMG, and you can see Disarming, Shoving Aside (a modification to Shove) and Marking. That's a gross misconception of battle, and one that I feel has to be dismissed. Sure, Grapple doesn't really work that well (but then again, it's identical to 4e Grab without modifications), but it can be done as part of the same action as attacking. Feats and class features also allow for some distinction. It's just that it's not as obvious as how it was presented via the AEDU framework.


And, no, 5e fans. I'm not here to argue that 4e is better. For you, 5e is clearly better. For my gaming groups, 4e is clearly better. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

You don't have to ascribe to one edition. I love 5e because it's rules-light. If I want rules-medium, I do 3.5. If I want rules heavy, I make everyone groan when I say "let's play Shadowrun 4e". I don't plan to formally switch to one edition or another - as best as I can, I'll try to run both in tandem. I still have some issues with 4e, but that doesn't mean I won't accept an invitation to play it, if only to formulate a more solid opinion (or, even, to change it entirely). It's not the strengths or weaknesses; it's the biases one group may have towards one system over another (sustained or otherwise). For most 5e detractors (in any part of the spectrum, from "mild dislike but still can play it" to "I returned to 3.5/4e after a few sessions because I couldn't stand it"), it's too less the system they like and too much the system they dislike. What one person perceives as "strengths" another will perceive as "weaknesses", and viceversa.

[cobaltstarfire]

The one guy in my group who is familiar with 4e has stated flat out that 4e can very easily be much more of a grind than any other system he's played, and that he finds 5e combat to be faster and more interesting.




Combat Fast and elegant but agree with above posters about it being kind of dull. Unless you're a spellcaster then you can juggle spell slots 3.5 style for stuff to do. Mechanics are trimmed down to 3.5 levels but you have less knobs to play with than you did in 3.5



I honestly think that combat being boring or interesting is really dependent on the players willingness to get creative and DM's willingness to let them. If all you do is wack/zap things over and over sure, that's boring. But if you try to find ways to gain advantage, or just have fun through describing what you're doing and such (which is encouraged in the PHB, and one of the reasons why 5e has such an open rule-set) it can be pretty fun.

In my current group most combats have us finding inventive ways to use the terrain or our class/race abilities to survive/defeat various encounters. Though we're apparently scarily resourceful (we have to be, it's a small group). Maybe there's more variety because all of us are multi-classing as well?

[Forum Explorer]

Back to bounded accuracy - because modifiers to your main abilities are hard to come by, there's a strong pressure to get the highest score in your main abilities as you can at character creation. This much isn't much different than any other edition of D&D, to be honest, but bounded accuracy exacerbates it a bit. As a result, it makes race/class combinations that aren't optimal very unattractive for players with even a casual eye on the numbers. Again, rolling for stats can alleviate this to a degree, but that opens up a whole other can of worms revolving around character imbalance around the table and difficulty for the DM in building balanced and challenging encounters. Personally, I hoped to solve this by giving everyone a feat at 1st level so, even using the default point buy method for stats, a character of any race/class combination can get at least a 16 in their main attribute. Of course, that also opens the door for players seeking the almighty 18 stat at character creation. :smalltongue: Oh well.

See, this I don't get. And you're not the first person to say this, so I actually want to talk about it.

In my experience, 5e, is much less demanding in maxing out your stats early, Precisely because of bounded accuracy. Yes, it does make you weaker to not have a higher number, of course it does. But generally, every stat besides Intelligence is pretty useful. (Strength is also kinda crappy for a bunch of classes, but Athletics is a fantastic skill so...) so having a higher then average Dex or Wis will still be useful.

But the big factor is that yes, you can still hit and they can still fail saves, simply because the biggest factor is the D20 rather then what your bonus is. And with ASIs increasing your stats by two points, it's not too hard to make up for a weaker stat earlier.

Finally the last big factor is that your stat maxes out at 20. Getting to that point early might give you an early power boost, but at higher levels it won't make as big of a difference because both races likely have the 20 anyways.

So what is it that is making you need that 20 earlier? Or rather, why hasn't it bothered me as much?

[Telwar]

Having played some 5e, I really much prefer 4e. Not to say that 4e was perfect (it wasn't, obviously), but I like it far better than any other edition of D&D I've played.

Most of the things I dislike about 5e have already been mentioned above. But, in particular, I dislike having so few choices in character creation and leveling. Combined with Bounded Accuracy, it limits my ability to save myself from the streaks of awful die-rolling I tend to have.

You'd think that removing decision making and actions from combat helps speed it up, but I've noticed the people in my group who took forever on their turns in 3e and 4e take forever on their turns in 5e.

[Broken Twin]

Having played both 3.5/Pathfinder and 4E extensively... 5E made me want to play D&D again. 4E was great as a DM and as a player, but in the end, it didn't fit with how my play style evolved.

To compare the two... I do miss the epic fantasy aesthetic of 4E, but I'm enjoying 5E's more traditional feel as well. 5E's partial adaption of healing surges (rolling HD during rest to recover) works well enough. Combat in 5E is definitely faster, which is a welcome change of pace. The simplification of combat makes monsters feel a bit more samey though.

TotM is a lot easier with 5E as well (despite what some people say, it WAS possible in 4E, just harder). I do morn the loss of paragon paths and epic destinies, as I feel like they were an excellent way to diversify your characters and adding late game choices. There's also a lot less number bloat in 5E, which I personally appreciate. The addition of backgrounds helps remove the class straitjacket on skills, which is a breath of fresh air for character concepts.

In regards to the need to min-max stats... hard to say. Both 4 and 5 have significantly less push to do so than 3.5/P does. Between the two of them? Eh, I'd say it's a wash.

[squiggit]

I honestly think that combat being boring or interesting is really dependent on the players willingness to get creative and DM's willingness to let them. If all you do is wack/zap things over and over sure, that's boring. But if you try to find ways to gain advantage, or just have fun through describing what you're doing and such (which is encouraged in the PHB, and one of the reasons why 5e has such an open rule-set) it can be pretty fun.

In my current group most combats have us finding inventive ways to use the terrain or our class/race abilities to survive/defeat various encounters. Though we're apparently scarily resourceful (we have to be, it's a small group). Maybe there's more variety because all of us are multi-classing as well?

Yeah it's definitely a YMMV thing and multiclassing definitely adds a layer. But having fun describing what you're doing, playing with terrain and being creative with a flexible DM aren't really components of this system. You can do that with 4e and 3.5 and 2e and OD&D and Parcheesi too.



But the big factor is that yes, you can still hit and they can still fail saves, simply because the biggest factor is the D20 rather then what your bonus is. And with ASIs increasing your stats by two points, it's not too hard to make up for a weaker stat earlier.
I think that's actually the point. The fact that you're so at the mercy of the d20 makes each and every +1 that much more meaningful. At least to an extent.


Finally the last big factor is that your stat maxes out at 20. Getting to that point early might give you an early power boost, but at higher levels it won't make as big of a difference because both races likely have the 20 anyways.

So what is it that is making you need that 20 earlier? Or rather, why hasn't it bothered me as much?
It's not just getting a 20 earlier though, because the race that gets the 20 earlier also gets an extra feat, which is amazing. Feats are worth a lot. So not only are you better sooner, but you stay ahead in a way the other player can never match too.

In 4e you can just adjust your point buy and in 3.5 some classes just outright don't need even their primary attribute and it's pretty easy to build around low scores.

[cobaltstarfire]

Yeah it's definitely a YMMV thing and multiclassing definitely adds a layer. But having fun describing what you're doing, playing with terrain and being creative with a flexible DM aren't really components of this system. You can do that with 4e and 3.5 and 2e and OD&D and Parcheesi too.

I can agree with that.

Thinking on it more, when I've talked to people about 4e, I've always gotten the feeling that the rules are quite crunchy, and it's up to the players to come up with fluff and things . Which I recognize is easy for some of us, but I think with new players coming into 4e that wasn't always a thing that came to mind for them. Though even veteran players can be like that.

I think what I'm getting at is that 5e rules for combat aren't as crunchy so you can mess with them more freely, while still abiding by the existing rules. Or to say another way, it's easier as a player or DM to get flexible with 5e's rules than with others.


Probably a silly question on my part, but when we compare the two, are we comparing 5e PHB to 4e PHB, or 5e to all of 4e, cause if its the latter, that's a little bit unfair to 5e. (I mostly ask because in 3.5 v 5e discussions the first thing people always say is "there's way more choices/variety in 3.5" and well, yeah 3.5 is older and has a bajillion splat books).

[Tholomyes]

My longer post got eaten, so rather than try to recreate it, I'm going to try to cover it in bullet points. For full disclosure, I'm pretty disillusioned with all editions and forms of D&D, so take this for what it's worth:

4e Pros:
-Tactical combat gave all classes interesting things to do in combat. The use of "Soft Control" (providing disincentives for enemies to act a certain way, without barring it completely) gave a greater depth to combat.
-The breadth of powers and feats gave a great deal of customization opportunities for characters.
-Races felt distinct, and roughly balanced. While certain classes had greater synergy with certain races, racial features as well as race-limited character options, made a character with a nonstandard class/race combination feel mechanically distinct, rather than just feeling like a suboptimal option.
-Parties felt more synergistic. It felt like the whole was greater than the sum of the parts, as each Role helped cover the weaknesses of the others.
-4e's Defender Mechanics are still one of my favorite mechanics from any RPG system.
-The 4e warlord filled a hole that D&D rarely fills: a martial character who has a reason to care about INT.
-It is very easy to DM, and encounter building is very intuitive.

4e Cons:
-Slow play: With practice, Levels 1-10 could run pretty smoothly, however past level 10, the game would noticeably drag on during combat.
-Noncombat options were sparse: Skills did not feel comprehensive, nor granular enough, visa vis Trained vs Untrained. Rituals were almost never used, as the cost was too great.
-Classes were too restrictive: Part of the reason for class bloat is that classes were a lot more narrow with what they could do. A Fighter was a melee Defender, ect. Going outside this 'box' that was your class was difficult to do, even with system mastery. As a result, characters tended to be built crunch first, rather than fluff first.

5e Pros:
-Much quicker combat.
-Classes are once again much broader
-In some ways easier to DM. While designing encounters is unnecessarily complicated, the simplified math makes it easier to give minor boons and benefits.
-Backgrounds partially divorce Fluff from crunch, allowing for greater varieties of character concepts which are viable.

5e Cons:
-Tactical depth is all but gone. Combat is nowhere near as interesting.
-It fits a strange midpoint between Theatre of the Mind and grid-based combat, in that it seems to naturally assume Theatre of the Mind, but still uses measures of distance and area, which are far more suited for grid based games. A better option would be to piggyback off 13th age's method of not dealing with ranges, but instead "Engaged", "Nearby", and "Far-away", and have AoEs affect a variable number of enemies (e.g. 1d4 nearby enemies in a group), or to go back to the 3/4e grid assumption, but this middle path is problematic.
-Character options are much more sparse, allowing for diminished mechanical variation, within a class.
-Feats feel like an afterthought, much of the time. Too few and far between, and the number available to choose from seems pretty low.
-The Battlemaster fighter is poor design. Since Maneuver choices are the same at level 3 as level 15, the options get less and less interesting as time goes on (as the interesting ones were likely chosen at lower levels). This further exasperates the lack of tactical depth.
-Certain classes have too few subclasses, and many classes have subclasses which are very niche, leaving little mechanical variation outside those niches. For example the monk has two niche subclasses, one specializing in elemental ki-magic and the other in ninjitsu-inspired features. This leaves only 1 subclass left for all other monk concepts.
-Encounter and monster design guidelines are bad, making DMing interesting combat much harder.

-And IMO the most important Con: 5e is too focused on releasing new Adventures as opposed to supplements. As someone who never uses prepublished adventures, this leaves nothing for me to purchase. 5e feels incomplete to me; this is not a unique problem, as 3.5 felt incomplete before the Complete [x] books, PF felt incomplete before the Advanced Player's Guide, and 4e felt incomplete before PHB 2 and the [x] power books. But the difference is that WotC has not only given no indication of any supplemental material on the horizon, but in many places they have outright stated that they do not intend to release any new material outside of the little that they include in the appendices of their adventures.

Avoiding bloat is fine, but a lack of any supplemental material is not, especially when the addition of Subclasses and subraces, as well as meatier feats means that they can get by without legions of classes and prestige classes, and thousands of feats. And it's the one reason I've been borrowing 5e material from friends, rather than buying my own; I'm voting with my wallet, and I don't want to buy into a system that doesn't seem to indicate any growth, especially when the system already feels incomplete.

[ghost_warlock]

See, this I don't get. And you're not the first person to say this, so I actually want to talk about it.

In my experience, 5e, is much less demanding in maxing out your stats early, Precisely because of bounded accuracy. Yes, it does make you weaker to not have a higher number, of course it does. But generally, every stat besides Intelligence is pretty useful. (Strength is also kinda crappy for a bunch of classes, but Athletics is a fantastic skill so...) so having a higher then average Dex or Wis will still be useful.

But the big factor is that yes, you can still hit and they can still fail saves, simply because the biggest factor is the D20 rather then what your bonus is. And with ASIs increasing your stats by two points, it's not too hard to make up for a weaker stat earlier.

Finally the last big factor is that your stat maxes out at 20. Getting to that point early might give you an early power boost, but at higher levels it won't make as big of a difference because both races likely have the 20 anyways.

So what is it that is making you need that 20 earlier? Or rather, why hasn't it bothered me as much?

squiggit pretty much hammered the nail right on the head:


I think that's actually the point. The fact that you're so at the mercy of the d20 makes each and every +1 that much more meaningful. At least to an extent.


It's not just getting a 20 earlier though, because the race that gets the 20 earlier also gets an extra feat, which is amazing. Feats are worth a lot. So not only are you better sooner, but you stay ahead in a way the other player can never match too.

In 4e you can just adjust your point buy and in 3.5 some classes just outright don't need even their primary attribute and it's pretty easy to build around low scores.




Most of the things I dislike about 5e have already been mentioned above. But, in particular, I dislike having so few choices in character creation and leveling. Combined with Bounded Accuracy, it limits my ability to save myself from the streaks of awful die-rolling I tend to have.

You'd think that removing decision making and actions from combat helps speed it up, but I've noticed the people in my group who took forever on their turns in 3e and 4e take forever on their turns in 5e.

Yes! Exactly these things.

Also, my players hit 7th level tonight and it's given me a few more things to think about and some insights. Spellcasters are awful again in 5e, but not just because they're more powerful than martial. They're awful because they slow the game down so much.

In 4e, though it may not have been true for every group, many people would use either the online or offline character builder, or some other resource which would provide them with concise power cards with detailed descriptions of all their abilities. This was a godsend for speeding up the game!

In 5e players are back to spending their turns flipping through the PHB looking for spell descriptions and nothing slows down the game more than that does. Irritatingly, even when provided with spell cards, players will still have to look up a good number of their spells in the book, either because they're being buttheads and refuse to use the cards, or because the description for many 5e spells is too long to fit legibly on a standard-sized card.

To further exacerbate the problem, 5e spellcasters can prepare too many spells. In 4e, even high level characters usually only knew less than a dozen powers and, for every class other than wizard, which powers they knew were set in stone until they leveled and chose to retrain one. In 5e, the players of spellcasters that prepare spells are once again saddled with choice paralysis whenever they take a long rest, which is often enough in the middle of a session, whereas when choice paralysis struck in 4e it usually took place between sessions.

[silveralen]

I'd say that one point not getting brought up much is the loss of some roles, particularly defender. It just isn't present this edition unless you use multiple variant rules. Controller, striker, and leader are present, but for defenders to exist you need fears for sentinel and/or marking. This is a fairly major annoyance on my end, it's bad compared to 4e but honestly even core 3.x better supported the role (not that the role was needed there but that's another story).

It's a minor gripe but I think it is something which helps contribute to the feeling of imbalance, as that was fighter's role in the edition where he really shone and it's just not here this time around.

Most of the other stuff has been covered multiple times, so I thought I'd add that in. Though I am surprised By people having slow combats.

[Zyzzyva]

I'd just like to say I'm finding the conversation interesting, and very polite and respectful. Thanks, everyone! :smallsmile:

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

In 5e players are back to spending their turns flipping through the PHB looking for spell descriptions and nothing slows down the game more than that does. Irritatingly, even when provided with spell cards, players will still have to look up a good number of their spells in the book, either because they're being buttheads and refuse to use the cards, or because the description for many 5e spells is too long to fit legibly on a standard-sized card.

This sounds like disorganized players slowing down the game. The casters I've played with have all their known spells printed onto a set of sheets, either pulled from PDFs, photocopies, or from online resources (http://hardcodex.ru/index.php). Usually the PHB only gets pulled out at level up or when players go shopping.

Still, one could say that something about 5e over 4e lends itself to this disorganization. The lack of official digital spell information for instance. I never played 4e, but I can see how the power cards are nice solution without requiring much extra effort on the part of the player.

[MrStabby]

I am seeing a couple of things here... one is there is a bunch of people who love 5th edition for whatever reason (I love it (with a couple more reservations) and can understand that so I am going to just gloss over that group).

Of the people who prefer 4th there seem to be two groups. One who preferred 4th because of the mechanics and one group who preferred 4th because of the better support.

Of the people who don't like 5th relative to 4th (or who do but with a lot of concerns), would you say that 5th is likely to become much better with more support?

By more support I mean more options for Players, a better back catalogue of adventures, sortable spells/more electronic linked versions of resources etc.? Are the problems part of the system or will they just go in time?

[archaeo]

Still, one could say that something about 5e over 4e lends itself to this disorganization.

I plucked this quote out to focus on the word "disorganization."

To me, 4e is a rules-first game. The edition's entire conceit revolves around its robust ruleset and mechanical balance. In comparison, 5e looks "disorganized," but I would prefer the word "loose." For some people, the looseness of 5e's rules is a huge turnoff, while others clearly feel freed by the newer edition's DM-centric rules paradigm.

I like both editions for different reasons, and I can imagine myself bringing either one out to meet the needs of a given table. If I had my druthers, WotC would release some kind of cool "D&D Tactics" product collecting the best of the 4e content while keeping 5e as the "main" D&D, but one imagines the Basic/Advanced TSR-era debacle will keep that kind of thing from ever happening. As it is, I would recommend 5e to any new player, but would be happy to suggest 4e to people more interested in tactical combat simulations and crunchy rulesets.


I'd say that one point not getting brought up much is the loss of some roles, particularly defender. It just isn't present this edition unless you use multiple variant rules. Controller, striker, and leader are present, but for defenders to exist you need fears for sentinel and/or marking.

Part of me wonders if this was an intentional design decision; it could be missing because it was decided that defenders slow down combat and tend to create static battles. A 4e defender can frequently dictate the rhythm of the entire battle, often for relatively little cost, whereas in 5e, the DM retains most of the control over battle tempo except in situations where PCs have spent expensive resources to change things up.

But as you point out, restoring the stickiness of the 4e fighter only requires a few variant rules that core 5e helpfully provides.

[obryn]

What's the 4e perspective? I've played 4e, um, once, so I can't really see from that perspective. I'm guessing "way less balanced" comes up, because that's every edition's weakness compared to 4e, but is there anything else 4e people see as a lack? Or as an obvious improvement, or an obvious carryover? (I think skills are much more similar 4-5 than 3-5, right?)
As a 4e fan, I am mostly struck by how regressive 5e is. It's a few big game design steps backwards, IMO, towards 90's-era d20 systems. (It's an improvement and refinement of d20, but it's just baby steps forward.)

The main issues I have with it are ... well, there's a lot of them, but to name a few ... (1) the neutering of martial characters' special effects, (2) the return to semi-simulation monster design, (3) the return of vancian casting, (4) the elimination of interesting archetypes such as the warlord, (5) spells emphasized in favor of skills for out-of-combat play, and (6) slower, less refined, and less-open-ended monster design.

It's also drastically less tactical, which was a downside for my own group.

[mephnick]

I don't really consider the defender with mechanical "defence powers" a D&D thing. It's an MMO convention. There were never "defender" abilities in the older versions as far as I can recall.

You know how you play a defender in D&D? Choke-points. Formation. Challenges in RP. Not mechanical aggro and bodyguard abilities (which 5e gives anyway). If you don't have the opportunity to do those kinds of things without printed abilities, your DM has to learn how to create better encounters and terrain.

[Tholomyes]

I am seeing a couple of things here... one is there is a bunch of people who love 5th edition for whatever reason (I love it (with a couple more reservations) and can understand that so I am going to just gloss over that group).

Of the people who prefer 4th there seem to be two groups. One who preferred 4th because of the mechanics and one group who preferred 4th because of the better support.

Of the people who don't like 5th relative to 4th (or who do but with a lot of concerns), would you say that 5th is likely to become much better with more support?

By more support I mean more options for Players, a better back catalogue of adventures, sortable spells/more electronic linked versions of resources etc.? Are the problems part of the system or will they just go in time? I suppose I'm in the latter category, though I will say that despite my dissatisfaction with both 4e and 5e, if push came to shove, I'd probably say 4e's mechanics were better. For me, I think 5e could be better with more support, but I have no faith in WotC to provide that support. Their current business plan seems to be Hasbro yelling at them about how Paizo's adventure paths have been selling, so they're focusing entirely on premade adventures that a majority of players will never touch. They have repeatedly mentioned how not only do they not have any current support on the horizon (and by support, I don't count adventures or electronic resources, considering the fact that I don't care about their prepublished adventures, and if they're not producing any new content, all the content I'll use is in one book anyway, so there's no need for an electronic version) but that they actively oppose producing sourcebooks for 5e.

I don't generally like 3rd party material due to how much of a mixed bag it can be, and it's unlikely to get enough attention to relieve either official errata or generally accepted house-fixes, like official material is, but I'm considering buying 5e 3rd party material, just to vote with my wallet, and have WotC watch my money go to someone who isn't them.


I don't really consider the defender with mechanical "defence powers" a D&D thing. It's an MMO convention. There were never "defender" abilities in the older versions as far as I can recall.

You know how you play a defender in D&D? Choke-points. Formation. Challenges in RP. Not mechanical aggro and bodyguard abilities (which 5e gives anyway). If you don't have the opportunity to do those kinds of things without printed abilities, your DM has to learn how to create better encounters and terrain.This highlights some of my problems with 5e quite well. The demand for mechanical purity of what 'is D&D' over well thought out design and interesting mechanics. There are some sacred cows that I will grant as being inherent to the D&D brand, that 4e altered; Vancian magic, while not my favorite mechanic, is one that I will cede. But this notion of "[x] isn't a D&D thing, so it is inherently wrong" is a sentiment I've seen a lot with 5e both during its development, and in it's finished state, and it is probably one of my biggest problems with the system.

[Forum Explorer]

I think that's actually the point. The fact that you're so at the mercy of the d20 makes each and every +1 that much more meaningful. At least to an extent.


It's not just getting a 20 earlier though, because the race that gets the 20 earlier also gets an extra feat, which is amazing. Feats are worth a lot. So not only are you better sooner, but you stay ahead in a way the other player can never match too.

In 4e you can just adjust your point buy and in 3.5 some classes just outright don't need even their primary attribute and it's pretty easy to build around low scores.

It's, how to describe this?

It's like the other games are more on a curve. And if you fell behind the curve, you'll basically be permanently stuck behind the curve without assistance. You won't be useless, but you will be basically permanently less useful without intervention from something.

5e, doesn't have that. Well not as much. The curve maxes out, and even at the furthest point, there is still times that you will be fighting the low level monsters. Being behind the curve isn't as bad because you can punch above your weight much easier. And like I said, you'll still hit the max of the curve, just not as quickly. So I don't really feel penalized for taking a sub-optimal choice.

Also, in 5e, the curve doesn't really take magic items into account. You get the right one of those, and you are suddenly above the curve. There is no guarantee that you'll actually get one (or the right one) of course, but the potential is there. Though being above the curve doesn't mean you'll always win. The punch above your weight thing goes both ways.


Feats are worth a lot, but you're acting like not choosing the optimal choice doesn't give you anything in return. For example, I want to make a Hill Dwarf Evoker. I don't get a bonus to intelligence, but instead I get much more hit points from a higher Con, and the racial bonus to HP, as well as a higher Wis, good for a lot of skills and making Wis saves. (Con is also good for saves and Concentration checks). Since wizards (particularly evokers) tend to have low HP, that extra HP will make a big difference, particularly when I start using Overchannal. Yes, I might be a bit behind in getting a feat, or capping my Int, but I'll still get the Feat, and cap my Int, because typically you have space in a full build for what is effectively a 'free ASI' (As in, you've got all the feats you want, and your combat stat(s) are maxed. So you just spend it on something else like a sub-optimal but interesting feat, or increasing a low stat)

Another fun 'atypical' build? A forest gnome Arcane Archer (IE, Eldritch Knight using a bow).

[mephnick]

This highlights some of my problems with 5e quite well. The demand for mechanical purity of what 'is D&D' over well thought out design and interesting mechanics. There are some sacred cows that I will grant as being inherent to the D&D brand, that 4e altered; Vancian magic, while not my favorite mechanic, is one that I will cede. But this notion of "[x] isn't a D&D thing, so it is inherently wrong" is a sentiment I've seen a lot with 5e both during its development, and in it's finished state, and it is probably one of my biggest problems with the system.

I'm not saying it's inherently wrong, there are plenty of systems that use those kind of video game mechanics and many of them are fun.

I'll play those systems (and I do!) if I want those mechanics. I don't need D&D to have aggro, marking and at will defensive powers.

[mephnick]

But I consider actual tactical thinking (like choke-points), more interesting than fake tactical thinking (I use a class ability to force people to attack me).

So to each his own.

[obryn]

Of the people who don't like 5th relative to 4th (or who do but with a lot of concerns), would you say that 5th is likely to become much better with more support?
Maybe? There's some bone-deep issues with the game engine that I take issue with, and more content won't ever fully remove that. But, depending on the content, I could certainly see disliking it less.

I don't know if I'd expect this, though. The last 'supplement' was almost entirely more stuff for wizards. A supplement which focused on non-casters would be an improvement.


I don't really consider the defender with mechanical "defence powers" a D&D thing. It's an MMO convention. There were never "defender" abilities in the older versions as far as I can recall.

You know how you play a defender in D&D? Choke-points. Formation. Challenges in RP. Not mechanical aggro and bodyguard abilities (which 5e gives anyway). If you don't have the opportunity to do those kinds of things without printed abilities, your DM has to learn how to create better encounters and terrain.
No, there weren't explicit defense abilities before 3.5's Knight. And IMO, that's a downside of earlier editions' combat.

There's no mechanical aggro in 4e, though; it's presenting a choice with two bad options to the enemies.


But I consider actual tactical thinking (like choke-points), more interesting than fake tactical thinking (I use a class ability to force people to attack me).

So to each his own.
You need that level of tactical thinking about choke-points in 4e, too, so I'm not sure where you're coming from, here. A 4e Fighter in an open field has a very limited ability to control the combat. A Fighter with ample choke-points, however, is in her element. Marking works alongside smart tactical thinking; it's not a replacement for it.

[Dralnu]

I've played D&D for ten years now. Most of that time was spent with 3.5, then I DM'd 4e for a little over a year once a week, and now play/run 5e.

4e is my favorite system of these three.

My take on 5e is the system regressed into 3e. It feels more like 3.7 than its own system. I like many of the changes they made over 3.5, most notably bounded accuracy, advantage/disadvantage, and restricting many spells to concentration. But then I look at so many things 4e did right over 3e and so much of that has devolved back to its crappier, archaic roots.

Notable examples:

Monster stats. As a DM, controlling monsters, tweaking them, building them, was an absolute breeze in 4e. Everything you needed was right on its statblock. Even better, you didn't sacrifice the monster's flavor -- in fact, the unique abilities were tailored around its underlying RP themes. An orc berserker felt like an orc berserker, as did the orc shaman, and it was all brilliantly conveyed in short, clear sentences. But 5e went back to 3e's style of monster stats -- big, bloaty stats with crappy guidelines to build your own. Your monster is a spellcaster? Alright, he's its spell list -- start referencing the PHB to figure it out. That's either a ton more prep work for me, the DM, to memorize what all those spells do and therefore what a good tactic for the monster to use, or it slows down combat while I pause and figure out what the spell I just cast does. And it gets worse as you go higher in levels, when spell use is more prevelant, and the spell lists get longer, and you become less and less familiar with what the spells are. Ugh.

Customization. Variety in both building characters and playing them. Martials had options just like casters and it was great. Yeah, I like playing martial classes with options. Playing a Monk was one of my most fun experiences in 4e. The array of abilities, the decision making, the reward for using the right ability at the right time, the customization options! I get so happy thinking about it. 3.5 was horrible for that unless you ran Tome of Battle, incidentally my favorite book. Then we get to 5e, and there's hollow shells of what used to be. You want a martial with options? Okay, Fighter Battlemaster! Look, maneuvers, kind of like the ones in ToB or 4e! Cool! Except most of them are junk and you're severely restricted on how many you can take and how often you can use them. How about Elemental Monk? Same problem, but even worse. Most decisions are either cast a weak spell OR punch things, instead of enhancing your punching of things in cool ways. Your selection is severely restricted, as are your ki points. Eldritch Knight depresses me for the same reason. The only martial I really like is a Rogue because Cunning Action is great and fun, and like, a Tempest Cleric or something.

Balance. 4e wasn't 100% balanced, but dear god was it a blissful step forward from 3e. 5e is better too, of course. They took many good steps nerfing the godlike casters, fixing their base classes, adding the concentration restriction to many of the borked spells, and nerfing many of the problem spells. But there's still lots of imbalance: moon druids at the low levels are disgusting and most people know it. Barbarians are also insane gods of war, less talked about but if you see one in action you'll know what I mean, he eclipses a Fighter until like level 11 when the poor guy finally starts catching up. Damage spikes are all over the place. Classes start lackluster at level 1 (Sorc, Wiz) and at the higher levels still dominate the game. I disliked my Sorcerer at low levels, as my entire group lived in the Barbarian's shadow for a long time.. until level 7 when I learned Polymorph to turn into a Giant Ape, suddenly becoming a better barbarian than the barbarian. Huh?

Also 4e had D&D Insider, a ton of amazing online tools to help your play experience. Now we have none of that for 5e, just cease and desist letters for people who try to fill that void on their own because it's been over a year and Wizards hasn't supplied it. We even regressed in technology!



So that's my rant on what I liked about 4e over 5e. That's not to say that 4e was perfect -- far from it -- but there was so many improvements that are just gone now from the latest edition, which to me is just 3.7. It saddens me that the backlash over 4e was so terrible that Wizards decided to ignore anything and everything they improved with it and just go back to 3e.

At the same time, I'm very happy that the feedback for 5e is so positive. If nothing else, I want Wizards to succeed financially so D&D doesn't die. I love this game and brand. I want it to flourish. If that means to pandering to old grognards that put AD&D at the pinnacle of gaming because they were 10 when they played it and it was the bestest ever, and 5E is dressed up as their college crush and beckoning them over seductively with remakes of the best adventure modules like Elemental Evil, then do it. Hell, bring back THAC0 if they demand it. If Wizards is successful then I'm happy.

[Sindeloke]

No, there weren't explicit defense abilities before 3.5's Knight. And IMO, that's a downside of earlier editions' combat.

I think the problem is that people think of "tank" as a separate role from controller. That's not at all true. There are exactly three different meta-roles that a character can fill in an RPG:

Damage-dealing (can be divided into AoE and single-target damage). In 4e this is a Striker.
Status manipulation (increasing allied hit point recovery, attacks, speed, and defenses, or penalizing enemies' same). In 4e this is either a Leader (manipulate allied status) or a Controller (manipulate enemy status).
Battlefield control (restricting the ability of enemies to move and act the way they want). In 4e this is either a Controller or a Defender.


The thing that a tank does is exactly the same as casting a Sleep, Hold Person, or Grease spell. It is no more and no less than preventing an enemy from taking the action it wants to, and instead forcing it to make an action more favorable to you. Whether this means not being able to get in range to attack, not being able to get away from an attack, being forced to attack someone with high defenses and survivability instead of the glass cannon, or not being able to do anything at all, it's all the same thing.

In a video game, the aggro mechanic is an easy way to implement this, but that doesn't make the "tank" concept reliant on taunts (and in fact, as Obryn notes, 4e didn't even have them). A tank is just a martial Controller. The amazing thing about 4e is that it recognized that all three of those roles should be available to both martial characters and spellcasters alike. The one thing I truly dislike about 5e is that they completely reneged on that. The closest you can get to a martial controller in 5e is a Battlemaster archer, and that's a 7-level class that's still forced by its design resources to be primarily about damage, which can be outdone in its ability to limit enemy action as an entire class by a number of 2nd level spells. If feats and multiclassing are allowed, you can get sentinel and a Rogue dip for Athletics expertise to improve things significantly, but you're still always going to be a primary striker making sad jealous puppy eyes at the wizard's walls of ice.

On the whole, I'd rather play 5e than 4e. I enjoy the minigame involved in mastering and synergizing different subsystems (actually I'm really irritated they didn't go further with that with the warlock, why the hell does it have spell slots?), I like av/disadv, and love it with some simple houserules (making them cancel on a 1:1 basis), they've made Vancian casting about as close to something I actually like as you possibly could while still retaining any semblance of Vancianness, and the subclass system is great, if not always well-implemented.

But the lack of a proper martial controller or leader, the inability to customize non-casters past level 3, and the unbelievably poor DM support (why is my DMG 600 pages of useless magic items and only a half a paragraph of monster, class and spell design that basically says "wing it"?) really sticks in my craw.

[silveralen]

But the lack of a proper martial controller or leader, the inability to customize non-casters past level 3, and the unbelievably poor DM support (why is my DMG 600 pages of useless magic items and only a half a paragraph of monster, class and spell design that basically says "wing it"?) really sticks in my craw.

A couple things.

1. I think monk is a fairly reasonable controller. He might not have the same breadth of options in this regard as some casters, but stunning strike is widely considered a great ability for good reason, and all three varieties have additional options in this regard.

2. You can customize non casters past level 3. Totem barbarian, battlemaster, the new non caster ranger with hunter archetype, and things like feats which are there explicitly to add a layer of customization for those who want it.

Disliking the fact the edition because it doesn't do those enough is fair (monk could be heavier on control with less damage at least in one subclass, which might have been elemental monk if it was more functional, the customization options could be deeper for sure, etc) but it isn't like they are completely missing.

[Telwar]

Of the people who don't like 5th relative to 4th (or who do but with a lot of concerns), would you say that 5th is likely to become much better with more support?

By more support I mean more options for Players, a better back catalogue of adventures, sortable spells/more electronic linked versions of resources etc.? Are the problems part of the system or will they just go in time?

My problems with 5e are directly related to the system. They really could not be resolved with additional material, unless that material somehow managed to re-build the entire system.

Given that the support we've seen so far is regressive ("Here are these new spells that we pulled from 2e and 3e! Here are these player races that we pulled from 2e and 3e!"), I can't see that happening any time soon.

[oxybe]

Of the people who don't like 5th relative to 4th (or who do but with a lot of concerns), would you say that 5th is likely to become much better with more support?

By more support I mean more options for Players, a better back catalogue of adventures, sortable spells/more electronic linked versions of resources etc.? Are the problems part of the system or will they just go in time?

No.

More player options won't really change issues I have with bounded accuracy or low early game hit points. It can alleviate some of my issues, but outside of heavily reworking the system, you can't "fix" those problems. Adventures are a moot point for me: I don't care for them and don't use them. Never really did.

Electronic tools will help on a logistics end sure and will help speed up some things but it still won't fix issues I have with the system.

Which, to me, is what it usually boils down to: At the end of the day, I'm playing a game. I don't need to spend 50-100 dollars on books to tell me how to pretend i'm a magical elf, but having someone already do the legwork on how to adjudicate being a magical elf fighting a werewolf on the back of an enchanted train? That I don't see a problem with... as long as the legwork is well done and stands out enough when compared to other magical elves VS werewolf games out there.

Because I have options when it comes to magical elves. Lots of options. Instead of playing the 5th edition of Tommy's Magical Elves I could just play the 4th or 3rd edition. Or Jake's personal take on Tommy's 3rd edition Magical Elves, called Magikal Elfs. Or I could play non-magical Elfgames. I have choices and options when it comes to magical elves.

5th edition just isn't mine. It's not bad, but I don't find it particularly good nor does it standout enough to draw my attention.

[MrStabby]

Fair enough.

I actually quite like bounded accuracy but for a couple of things.

I would like it less bounded - the cap on stats at 20 makes too many characters be functionally the same as choice gets removed (do I boost Str or Con isn't much of a choice when the rules wont let you boost Con further). I approve of the concept but my preferences may just be a bit different.

The other thing I don't like with bounded accuracy is the role of proficiency. It feels very passive. No choices are made, no trade off in character development it just happens.

I think 5th could be the best edition yet but I would still hope for a few more options for Classes, Archetypes, Spells, Feats and weapons. I like its speed once you get to know it (although there always seems to be that one person who hasn't read their class description or spells - and often it isn't the person new to the game!).

[ghost_warlock]

But the lack of a proper martial controller or leader, the inability to customize non-casters past level 3, and the unbelievably poor DM support (why is my DMG 600 pages of useless magic items and only a half a paragraph of monster, class and spell design that basically says "wing it"?) really sticks in my craw.

This is a problem I have with 5e as well, though not exclusively related to DMing. Far too many things in 5e are left open to interpretation with the return to the "ask your DM" school of thought. I am the DM for my group and it would be nice to have had these things spelled out for me so I didn't have to make up a ruling myself on the fly.

If I'm going to pay for someone to write rules for me, which is exactly the reason why I'm buying gaming books rather than writing my own system, why would I be satisfied with a system that so often expects me to "wing it?"

[Tholomyes]

But the lack of a proper martial controller or leader, the inability to customize non-casters past level 3, and the unbelievably poor DM support (why is my DMG 600 pages of useless magic items and only a half a paragraph of monster, class and spell design that basically says "wing it"?) really sticks in my craw.On the DM thing, that's something that I have a problem with too, especially with how things were hinted towards, during the playtest, and in the months between playtest and DMG launch.

During the playtest, the promise of "Modularity" was the big buzzword for 5e. The idea that you could grab certain mix and match different rulesets that could be layered on top of a very bare-bones base system. It was the promise that WotC was saying "Yeah, folks, we know it's very simplistic, and we recognize not all of you want that, but we will have ways to add greater complexity". At first I had the hope of a bunch of sourcebooks which would provide rulesets and subclasses and feats appropriate for that modular aspect (for example, a handbook which could cover some of the more contentious Martial stuff, like the Warlord, or defender mechanics, or the like). Then, it sounded more and more like they were going to put modularity in the DMG, which diappointed me, but since the base system was pretty simple, I figured that they could cover the normal DMG things, and have about half the book be modular options. That way the DMG would be less about just "here's how you make a town" which I have in every other DMG I've purchased, and more about "Here's how you can give 5e the feel and style of D&D that your group wants to play".

I still wasn't 100% sold, since none of the supposed modularity was being playtested in open beta, nor did I hear of any closed beta playtestings of it, but I held out hope, since I found it unlikely that WotC would completely ignore something that they had been so vocal about as one of their new selling points of the system.

Come DMG release, I open the book to realize their idea of modularity was "dice instead of static proficiency numbers" and "rests are shorter or longer (but function otherwise the same)". Basically things that anyone who wanted to do so had already houseruled. There were a bunch of magic items, which was cool and all, but a lot of the wonderous items and the like were basically ported over from 3.5 largely unchanged. In addition, the fact that they stated their focus on Adventures nixed any hope that my original vision of modularity might reappear.

[Person_Man]

4E is a great miniature tactical combat game.

5E is the best 90's roleplaying game on the market. (Crunchy, simulationist, theater of the mind, heavily based on the tropes/traditions of D&D).

My one big criticism for both of them is that Powers/Abilities/Spells don't scale by default.

In 4E this was done so that you would always gain a "new" Power whenever you leveled up (across 30 levels! Because leveling up is awesome! So lets make more! That'll make it more fun!), but resulted in a huge number of mostly duplicative fiddly Powers and Feats.

In 5E this was done so that spellcasters could use something resembling the traditional Vancian spell chart while keeping non-casters relatively simple, without having spells totally dominate the game.

I would have preferred something closer to a 4E/Legend/FATE hybrid, where everything scales by default (with fewer, more potent, and more flexible powers/spells/etc) or nothing scaled by default to keep all the math simple and useful at every level (including hit points and Saves - so gaining levels lets you do more stuff but does not make you inherently tougher to kill unless you're using special defenses).

[Easy_Lee]

I would have preferred something closer to a 4E/Legend/FATE hybrid, where everything scales by default (with fewer, more potent, and more flexible powers/spells/etc) or nothing scaled by default to keep all the math simple and useful at every level (including hit points and Saves - so gaining levels lets you do more stuff but does not make you inherently tougher to kill unless you're using special defenses).

Ditto for that. Leveling is a needless tradition that serves only to section the game off. Here are your level 5 areas, there are your 10s, over there your 15s, and these are your 20s. They don't mix.

But 5e is, at least, much better in this regard due to smaller numbers and bounded accuracy.

[squiggit]

Two little things I miss from 4e:

-The Warlord. One of my favorite classes in any edition of D&D and I liked even back when I despised 4e because it was so cool.

-Secondary stats and class features/subclasses that changed those secondary stats. Being able to build a charismatic barbarian who actually had a use for that charisma because he was a Thaneborn and got to buff allies with it. Being a rogue who's strong as well as quick and using that strength to augment finesse. These were cool things.

And I'd say 4e's biggest failing in that was not expanding/balancing the options more, because it was an awesome concept.


Ditto for that. Leveling is a needless tradition that serves only to section the game off.

It's also there to function as a power curve for characters. In fact I'd say sectioning the game off is more an incidental feature of the former than its own end.

[Tholomyes]

-Secondary stats and class features/subclasses that changed those secondary stats. Being able to build a charismatic barbarian who actually had a use for that charisma because he was a Thaneborn and got to buff allies with it. Being a rogue who's strong as well as quick and using that strength to augment finesse. These were cool things.

I'm of a couple minds about this. While the standardization of Primary and secondary stats, with one varying based on subclass, made it easier to balance without worrying as much about MAD and SAD classes, I think it ran into the problem that Ability scores lost a lot of their distinctiveness. However, in theory I do agree that it would be really cool to have mechanical reasons to have Charasmatic Barbarians, Strong Rogues, Smart Fighters, ect. A solution could be something like Pillars of Eternity's method, where all stats matter for different things, so a wizard with high might does more damage with spells, the same way a fighter would, or a fighter with high INT has their maneuvers' durations last for longer, same as a wizard would, but I don't know how to do that on the tabletop without excessive bookkeeping.