Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?

[Necr0mancer]

Quick Background: I played 3.5 for a very long time and to this day I still think that it is the best RPG system. Its complex enough that I can feel that my character is different from other characters of the same class, but straightforward enough that once you get the hang of it, you understand it. However, as much as I played it for a very long time a very long time ago, when I started playing D&D again about a year ago, the group I got together with was playing 4e. So, I learned 4e and I found it to be much, much simplier and anything I didn't immediately get, I caught on very quickly. There was some stuff I liked (encounter/daily powers for fighter type classes) and some stuff I didn't like (skill training vs. skill points, encounter/daily powers for every other class, the way magic items work) but I trudged through it and I had a good time more or less.

However, at this point I've made about my 4th character and I'm noticing something that I don't like; leveling up is kind of boring and battles are repetitious. Not getting a new ability every level, is disheartening and even when I do, I've found that it is not always impactful to my character. After I play a character for about 5-6 sessions, combat gets pretty repetitive. Use encounter abilities, then use at-wills. Boss? Use daily abilities, then encounters, then at-wills. (Obviously, this is a generalization, but its how it feels). In 3.5 my spell casters would get a varity of spells to choose from and my spell selection wouldn't have to be the same every day. But I've found that my characters have cast the same ability many many times and ultimately, even when I have totally different characters or try different spells they don't even feel all that different. (Roll to hit, deal some damage, maybe do something tactically interesting for a bit, but it ends rather quickly).

When our DM asked about moving to 5e I was against it. I didn't want to learn another system or buy another book. (Especially since my gut tells me that it would be FURTHER, not closer from the best system and the one I actually want to play.) However, the repitition has finally caught up with me and I'm thinking about suggesting the change myself. However, I don't know anything about 5e at all and part of me doesn't want to make the suggestion, if it will only to get more of the same.

So, my two questions are....

1) What are the best reasons to switch from 4e to 5e?

2) Does 5e have the repetitiousness that I've come to dislike about 4e?

Thank you in advance!

[hymer]

Stated (a little overly) simply, 5e is somewhere between 3.5 and 4e in most things, with some bits and pieces from other editions to be found here and there.
If you want less repetition, using different powers, play a 5e cleric, druid or wizard, who have large lists of spells to choose from. I haven't played a cleric or wizard much yet, but druid certainly changes in flavour as you advance through levels, and you get new tools at your disposal.
If, on the other hand, you decide to play a Chamion Fighter, you'd likely find the mechanics more repetitive than 4e.

In the end, my best suggestion is to try it. For someone who knows both 3.5 and 4e well, you'll have little trouble getting to know 5e. Get your own impression.

[cougon]

5E is a lot simpler than 3/3.5E, while still being varied enough that two people playing the same class are still very different (unless they went with exactly the same build). In 5E you don't wind up with extreme power creep or having to add up a lot of modifiers for each action. I haven't played 4E, but do own the core books, and if you preferred 3.0/3.5 over 4E, then you'll probably like 5E more than 4E.

[Ninja_Prawn]

1) What are the best reasons to switch from 4e to 5e?

2) Does 5e have the repetitiousness that I've come to dislike about 4e?

Thank you in advance!

Disclaimer: I never played 4e, but I listed to the Crucial Hit podcast until I got tired of the hour-long, hyper-repetitive battles, so I think I know what you're talking about.

1) Feels like traditional D&D instead of an MMORPG, has more official support & potential for new releases, supports more varied/unusual builds, keeps some of the better parts of 4e (bounded accuracy, ease of DMing, prioritising balance over realism).

2) Depends on your table. 5e assumes that most characters will use their standard at-will actions most of the time, but also encourages you to think outside the box. There isn't the same sense you had with 4e that you have a set of buttons in front of you and your only options are to push one of them.

E.g. the rules assume a fighter will make a weapon attack on most turns. But there's nothing to stop them shoving, or grappling, or disarming, or trying to intimidate, or anything else. The only limit is your imagination!

[Stan]

As above, 5e is maybe 20% 4e, 40% 5e, 10% 2e and 30% new stuff. It's back to Vancian casting with spell selection. It's more balanced than 3e. It also plays differently in that to hit and AC don't skyrocket -25 AC is good even at high level so lots of low level creatures are a potential threat. They don't call them that but there are still some daily and encounter powers; instead, they state a power refreshes after a short or long rest. 5e doesn't have the video game healing of 4e but it's much faster than 3e, with full healing after a good night's sleep.

If you really like 3e, you should check out Pathfinder. It's 3e with a few things cleaned up, some new chrome, plus a ton of new options. You can check out most of the rules to see the classes/feat/races and stuff for free (legally) at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

[Waazraath]

Haven't played 4e, but 5e is quite like 3.x, without most of the broken stuff, more balance, less power creep, less dependency on items.... they kept a lot good stuff of the 3.x flavor and mechanics, added good new ones, good things from other editions. Based on what you write in the OP, I think you could safely give it a try. Hell, the pdf with a few basic classes and options is free, so no risk at all in checking it out.

[Inevitability]

As someone who's played both 4e and 5e, I recommend at least trying out 5e. All classes gain either a new class feature or a new level of spells at each level-up. I think you won't find the system as repetitive as 4e. Note, though, that it depends a lot on your DM and fellow players.

The best reasons to switch to 5e are the greater feeling of diversity, a less 'intensive' system (creating a character is easier than in 4e) and the return to 3.5's traditional interpretation of various D&D concepts, if you're the person who cares about those. You'll find that 5e has kept 4e's balanced gameplay and philosophy that martials should get nice things.

Major downsides of 5e: it (still) lacks the customizability of either 4e or 3.5, and there's no Warlord.

[JNAProductions]

I'm seconding the others that say "Give it a try". Some rules are available free online, so give those a whirl, if you like it? Buy the books. If not? All you wasted was a little time.

As a side note, you're asking the 5E forum if you should switch. Barring a few odd ones, everyone here LIKES 5E. So responses may be biased. :P

[Daishain]

5E has some potential builds that are just as repetitive in nature as your typical 4E character. (a straight up champion fighter, with no feats that add new abilities, would be the prime example) However, these are rare enough that you almost have to go looking for them. 5E takes some inspiration from 4E, but is much closer in spirit to 2nd and 3.x.

For instance, at will magic abilities have survived in the form of cantrips. But the majority of spells are back to the old 3.5e vancian style.

Unfortunately (in my opinion), one thing that 5E didn't revive that you mentioned was skill points. Some bard and rogue abilities make it slightly more complex, but generally speaking you are either proficient and add a flat bonus to the skill rolls, or you are not and don't.

[Nu]

Gonna be honest with you here--as someone who played through all three systems you have, I'm not sure you're actually going to enjoy 5E. It sounds like your issues with 4th edition were "repetitive battles" and "spamming the same abilities over and over", which is 5th edition combat in a nutshell. If anything, I'd say it's worse in 5E than it was in 4E, because monsters are much less varied and much more generic, and in 4th edition there was no class that defaulted to its at-will abilities all the time, while 5th edition is much stingier with its encounter/daily-based resources.

You're not going to anywhere near the wide spectrum of option you found in mid-level 3rd edition spellcasters until the very late game (they have their reasons for this design choice and I agree with them, but it sounds like you do not). Your post, of course, focuses on the combat side of things, so that's what I'm commenting on.

[LaserFace]

I'd say the greatest perks of 5E are that things run smoothly and quickly. 4E combat nearly always ran too long for our group, and outside of the game we'd be constantly reading up on what new abilities we should choose (even if they were frequently just improved variations of lower-level moves) and upgrading items and making sure all the mechanics were solid. I found it kind of annoying.

Repetition is something that may or may not be addressed depending on how you guys approach combat. 5E strikes me as less of a tactical combat game, more of a "describe stuff and you do it" game. My DMing style appreciates this more, because I feel like everyone at the table can be a little more creative about how they approach problems when things are less set-in-stone. But, unless your gaming environment allows you to do this, you may find combat just as bland as any edition, especially if you play a Champion Fighter (as someone already brought up).

[Daishain]

It sounds like your issues with 4th edition were "repetitive battles" and "spamming the same abilities over and over", which is 5th edition combat in a nutshell.
... Have we been playing the same game?

Oh, I've fought battles as you describe, but generally only against mooks where nothing other than basic attacks were necessary.

[Nu]

... Have we been playing the same game?

Oh, I've fought battles as you describe, but generally only against mooks where nothing other than basic attacks were necessary.

At low to low-mid levels, where the vast majority of play happens (according to surveys and my personal experience)? It's pretty much the norm.

Even when a spell caster has 3~7 spells per day (while martial classes are weapon attacking over and over and over), they usually cast the same ones over and over. Been in several different groups, I have yet to see an exception.

[gfishfunk]

Its DM dependent, really. DMs control how complex enemies are, and 5e enables more complex combat than 4e (in my opinion), but there less specific levers and buttons to push.

4e had been boring for me in the past because the most interesting aspects were in character creation and upgrading, which gave you new levers but they were still boring-ish in play.

A good DM creates interesting encounters in 5e, but it is really easy to create boring encounters by just grabbing enemies from the MM and plopping them in without much thought.

[Daishain]

At low to low-mid levels, where the vast majority of play happens (according to surveys and my personal experience)? It's pretty much the norm.

Even when a spell caster has 3~7 spells per day (while martial classes are weapon attacking over and over and over), they usually cast the same ones over and over. Been in several different groups, I have yet to see an exception.
Even if talking about one of the very few martials that don't have a plethora of special abilities to work with, they can all shove, trip, disarm, etc. If one is always ignoring such actions in favor of simple attacks, major opportunities are lost. And if your casters only use the same spells over and over, they're badly crippling themselves.

So the answer is no, we aren't playing the same game, but it isn't 5E's fault. I strongly suggest that you start showing the people you're playing with how to think and play creatively.

[Burley]

So, as somebody who has played 4e, extensively:

5th edition has the rules simplicity that 4e was shooting for (e.g. skill training vs. skill points) but makes battle-mats and minis optional, rather than necessary.

I like 5th edition's rules, for the most part. My problem with it is that there are no options. You generally need to have your entire build decided on at 3rd level and you're on that path for the whole game. There's no paragon paths or prestige classes. Also, the game dislikes magic items, as they heavily tip the scale in most cases. A +1 weapon isn't such a big deal, but wands, amulets, rings and general wondrous items are prohibitively expensive until much later in the game, when they feel too weak to match with your level.


So, if you're enjoying 4th edition, stick with it. If you're wanting a game that requires less table space and PHB page flipping, consider 5th edition.

Both are fun, but I consider them to be two completely different games that have overlapping themes.

[Ninja_Prawn]

So, if you're enjoying 4th edition, stick with it.

I suspect the OP may find themselves without anyone to play with if they try this. :smalltongue:

Regarding options (esp. prestige classes), it should be noted that homebrew is always an option. WotC is even running a semi-official homebrew marketplace with the DM Guild!

[Nu]

Even if talking about one of the very few martials that don't have a plethora of special abilities to work with, they can all shove, trip, disarm, etc. And if your casters only use the same spells over and over, they're crippling themselves.

An enemy at 0 hit points is far better than a prone or disarmed enemy. This means even if you can "shove (Athletics check that eats your action, not everyone is going to be able to pull that off and shouldn't be wasting their action trying except in some narrow circumstances), trip (battle master maneuver, so one specific subclass), disarm (optional DMG variant rule which may or may not be used), etc.", it's often not the best idea to.

I have been in many combats. I do keep these things in mind. I evaluate the tactical situation, and try to decide when it's better to do those things rather than simply attack. To use an example: in a game where I play 10th level paladin (started at level 7), I have used one of the above things exactly one time over several adventuring days, when I teleported behind a whirling blade barrier (not the spell exactly, but similar concept) using Misty Step and shoved an enemy spellcaster into the blades. It was a cool moment, but it's a rarity when I do something other than swing my sword and smite.

Edit: You say a caster that casts the same spells over and over again is crippling themselves. I'd say a cleric that isn't casting bless at 1st level and still casting bless at 9th level is crippling itself. A sorcerer learns fireball at 5th level. At 10th level, it's still something that gets used several times daily. Are they crippling themselves, or are they blowing up hordes of mooks and taking out huge chunks of HP from small groups of tougher enemies? My experience says the latter.


So the answer is no, we aren't playing the same game, but it isn't 5E's fault. I strongly suggest that you start showing the people you're playing with how to think and play creatively.

Playing creatively and good DMing are system-agnostic. Therefore, they are utterly irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is discussing what you can do within the rules and guidelines given by the game.

[D.U.P.A.]

Combat can be quite fast (and deadly), you can fall unconscious in two hits, same with the monsters, so no more repetitive HP bags.

Also the rules are sometimes ambiguous, but this was done on purpose, to better accomodate various variations to different styles of play. Many things are 'at DM discretion'.

[LaserFace]

Playing creatively and good DMing are system-agnostic. Therefore, they are utterly irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is discussing what you can do within the rules and guidelines given by the game.

Hoping to avoid coming off as hostile to this sentiment, I wanted to make share an observation I've had with some systems that I think is relevant to the overall discussion.

In a system like 3.X, if you want to do a "trip attack" or the like, the system itself actively punishes you if you don't have special feats that get rid of penalties associated with the action. In my opinion, systems like this don't kill creativity but sometimes put players into smaller boxes and make them believe that they have fewer options than they really do. One of 5E's strengths IMO is that the rules take a step back, and though this doesn't imply there is more creativity at the table, I do think it better enables it to flourish under some conditions.

[Nu]

Hoping to avoid coming off as hostile to this sentiment, I wanted to make share an observation I've had with some systems that I think is relevant to the overall discussion.

In a system like 3.X, if you want to do a "trip attack" or the like, the system itself actively punishes you if you don't have special feats that get rid of penalties associated with the action. In my opinion, systems like this don't kill creativity but sometimes put players into smaller boxes and make them believe that they have fewer options than they really do. One of 5E's strengths IMO is that the rules take a step back, and though this doesn't imply there is more creativity at the table, I do think it better enables it to flourish under some conditions.

The problem with that specific example is if you want to knock an enemy prone with an ability check, there is a clearly defined way to do that in the 5th edition, too. It's the Shove action. If you want to "trip" an enemy, then you should just use the Shove action and call it "tripping" them. Putting aside for the moment there is actually a battle master maneuver called "Trip Attack".

It's true that 3.x typically included penalties on "special attacks" like tripping and grappling while relying on feats to remove those penalties, but the original poster mentioned 4th edition and 5th edition in the subject line, so I'm typically trying to stick to comparing those two editions.

And let me make my position clear: my own personal edition of choice is currently 5th edition DnD. But I hoped to give an objective view the two since I have played (and DM'd) both to a reasonable extent (4th edition much more so, primarily due to it being out much longer), and also have some experience with 3rd edition, which was mentioned in the body of the post. I would generally recommend 5th edition. But I think the OP is most likely to like 3rd edition the best, based on what they said they had issues with in 4th edition, because I certainly don't think 5th edition tackles those issues in a better manner than 4th. Notice the poster specifically mentions 3rd edition "spell casters", which will probably mean he doesn't even have to worry about improvising or DM fiat, because in 3rd edition, there's a spell to solve pretty much any problem.

I think 5th edition got a lot right, but that doesn't mean it's great for the OP. And we should be reasonable in pointing out its flaws. It still might be worth a shot though, the OP might find that the lack of round-to-round tactical options don't make as big a difference when the combats are overall quicker.

[LaserFace]

The problem with that specific example is if you want to knock an enemy prone with an ability check, there is a clearly defined way to do that in the 5th edition, too. It's the Shove action. If you want to "trip" an enemy, then you should just use the Shove action and call it "tripping" them. Putting aside for the moment there is actually a battle master maneuver called "Trip Attack".

It's true that 3.x typically included penalties on "special attacks" like tripping and grappling while relying on feats to remove those penalties, but the original poster mentioned 4th edition and 5th edition in the subject line, so I'm typically trying to stick to comparing those two editions.

And let me make my position clear: my own personal edition of choice is currently 5th edition DnD. But I hoped to give an objective view the two since I have played (and DM'd) both to a reasonable extent (4th edition much more so, primarily due to it being out much longer), and also have some experience with 3rd edition, which was mentioned in the body of the post. I would generally recommend 5th edition. But I think the OP is most likely to like 3rd edition the best, based on what they said they had issues with in 4th edition, because I certainly don't think 5th edition tackles those issues in a better manner than 4th. Notice the poster specifically mentions 3rd edition "spell casters", which will probably mean he doesn't even have to worry about improvising or DM fiat, because in 3rd edition, there's a spell to solve pretty much any problem.

I think 5th edition got a lot right, but that doesn't mean it's great for the OP. And we should be reasonable in pointing out its flaws. It still might be worth a shot though, the OP might find that the lack of round-to-round tactical options don't make as big a difference when the combats are overall quicker.

All fair points, I just farted out the first example I could think of because of your comment about creativity being agnostic to system. I just feel that while it shouldn't really matter what system you're playing, it doesn't seem to always play out that way and was worth pointing out. But I agree, 5E doesn't necessarily fix the OP's issues here.

[Shining Wrath]

Reasons to switch

Ongoing support
Probably more players
Character classes have more difference in "feel"
Game focuses more on characters, less on battlemap
Combats resolve more quickly


Reasons to stick with 4e
Lots more books published for 4e, so far
You already have the 4e stuff
4e supports tactical combat much better than 5e

[obryn]

5e is a powered-down game built on the same general chassis as 3.x. If you liked 3.x, odds are good you'll like 5e, too, unless the main reason you liked 3.x was the character creation game.

My group is sticking with 4e, ourselves.

[Burley]

Ongoing support


Good one. Oh... were you serious? Because... by this time in the life cycle, 3.5 and 4e had, I think, three or four supplements, with new class features, feats and powers. 5e has... Dragon articles, which are now 50/50 non-WotC material. WotC is not supporting 5e, we're just hoping they do.
(Yeah. I'm bitter. I want to give the company my money, but they seem to only want it in exchange for Magic booster packs, and I'm tired of this gacha game.)


Regarding options (esp. prestige classes), it should be noted that homebrew is always an option. WotC is even running a semi-official homebrew marketplace with the DM Guild!


Homebrew is extremely difficult to do in 5e, while remaining balanced. I've created a few PrCs, but it's really rough to keep it all fair. I would not recommend homebrewing if you've not been in the system for a while.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Homebrew is extremely difficult to do in 5e, while remaining balanced. I've created a few PrCs, but it's really rough to keep it all fair. I would not recommend homebrewing if you've not been in the system for a while.

That's not been my experience at all. Though to be fair, I've never made any homebrew for any other system, so it's possible they're even easier.

[MrFahrenheit]

I've played all the editions the OP has, and fifth. Take from my experience what you will.

The biggest single draw for me to 5e isdice rolling that truly matters. Thanks to bounded accuracy, all bonuses stay low; such static bonuses never get to a point where people say "the only reason I'm rolling this d20 is to see whether I critically fail or fumble, because otherwise I have high enough bonuses to hit."

It's very common for AC to stay in the high teens to low twenties before spells and temporary modifiers are added in, for attack and damage bonuses to never get into double digits (ditto on temporary stuff here though too), and for low CR monsters to pose a believable threat to a higher level party, rather than having a minion class of monsters.

And even with temporary bonuses, none of these numbers get too out of control anyway.

[Ivellius]

That's not been my experience at all. Though to be fair, I've never made any homebrew for any other system, so it's possible they're even easier.

Compared with 3e, homebrewing for 5e is quite easy as long as you have an idea.

For 3e stuff, I may not have worried that much about balance due to how fundamentally imbalanced the game was.

OP, I think it sounds like you'd like 5e if you enjoy 3e over 4e, but you do mention a few things you don't like about 4e that make me wonder if you really would. I'd at least say try it for a few sessions.

[DeAnno]

It's unlikely you'll get an unbiased answer on a 5e forum.

For what it's worth in terms of character divergence and complexity 5e is like a very dumbed down 3.5e. A full caster will be more complex than a 4e character and a non-full caster will be simpler. Dead levels have not really gone away, they are just Hiding in Plain Sight, covered up by certain features that are not very useful; certain classes are much worse than others in that respect.

You might personally be more satisfied with a 5e caster than a 4e character, but you might not. The system does tend to try to punish divergence, and the much vaunted bounded accuracy has an effect of tending to make different characters feel unspecialized and samey. Those casters will have powerful abilities that don't end right away though, to a degree 4e ritual magic doesn't. So if what you're looking for is more Strategic variety (over Tactical variety) 5e might be interesting.

[Shining Wrath]

Good one. Oh... were you serious? Because... by this time in the life cycle, 3.5 and 4e had, I think, three or four supplements, with new class features, feats and powers. 5e has... Dragon articles, which are now 50/50 non-WotC material. WotC is not supporting 5e, we're just hoping they do.
(Yeah. I'm bitter. I want to give the company my money, but they seem to only want it in exchange for Magic booster packs, and I'm tired of this gacha game.)




Homebrew is extremely difficult to do in 5e, while remaining balanced. I've created a few PrCs, but it's really rough to keep it all fair. I would not recommend homebrewing if you've not been in the system for a while.

More 5e books will be published. No more 4e books will be published. 3.75 there's Pathfinder.
I am not sure that many splatbooks makes for a great game. Did we really need 90 base classes for 3.5? Especially considering the level of fail some of them displayed, e.g., Truenamer.

[hymer]

Did we really need 90 base classes for 3.5? Especially considering the level of fail some of them displayed, e.g., Truenamer.

Statistics and bell curves and such demand the occasional stinker when numbers rise high enough, don't they? :smallwink:

[D.U.P.A.]

As a former 4e player I liked very much they preserved many cool stuff from 4e:

1. Death saving throws: no more -10 hp death like in 3.5e and unlikely 4e, you could actually stabilize yourself without help as successes also count. You can die directly too, but that is unlikely (having -total HP instead of -half HP in 4e)
2. Healing surges: 5e has hit dice you spend as healing yourself like healing surges in 4e, so dedicated healers from 3.5 are no more mandatory. Although git dice are much more scarce, as hit points are generally lower too.
3. At will powers: cantrips and special attack features from martial classes (like extra attack)
4. Short rest: where you can recover some health and class features
4. Encounter and daily powers: class features that recharge after you make a short or a long rest, in this order. The number of powers it varies greatly between the classes. Examples of encounter power based classes are Battlemaster with his maneuvers or Warlock for its spells, while dailies are ordinary spells (but you can use multiples of same ones) and particular abilities, like Fighter's indomitable.

[2D8HP]

For me the 5e PHB and DMG are worth it for their artwork and bibliographies alone!
Alot of the rules themselves are free!:

http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop/players-basic-rules

http://dnd.wizards.com/node/6526

http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf

So you can try them out first and see if they're to your taste without spending any money except on ink and paper (assuming you have a printer)!
Besides playing 5e I've only played alot of 1970's rules DnD (and some other less fun RPG's), but from what I hear alot of people find that combat goes quicker in 5e than in 4e, and they like that.
If it's worth the hassle of learning another set of rules probably depends mostly on what rules the other people at your table want to use, but in "ye old days" only the DM was supposed to know all the rules anyway!
The rules still has:
Magic Wands :smallsmile:
Swords :smallsmile::smallsmile:
Longbows :smallsmile: :smallsmile: :smallsmile:
and
Dragons! :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:
As a player I've been having big fun!
As a DM? It was relatively quick to start, but especially as the PC's get to high levels I recommend that you sucker someone else into share the joys of being the DM.

[Burley]

I am not sure that many splatbooks makes for a great game. Did we really need 90 base classes for 3.5? Especially considering the level of fail some of them displayed, e.g., Truenamer.


I do want that. In 5e, when you pick your class, you have to pick your path (prestige class) in, like, three levels. In 3.5/4e, you could pick all those at the beginning of the game, or you could make your decision later, based on events in the adventure that affected you or people you've met. Or, you could just decide not to do that.
5e seems like it's giving you a lot of choices, but it doesn't. It gives you one choice in low levels, and it doesn't even give you the choice to make that choice or not.

4e is a game of choices. You are, at every level, making your character unique to what you want. Are all of the options necessarily the most powerful? Of course not. Put they're options. It gives you something to look forward to at every level. 5e has bonuses at every level, but they're not special. They're exactly the same as any other Assassin, Berserker or Bow Ranger. The only time I've heard my players say "I can't wait to level!" is for the stat increase. When your most exciting class feature is something that every other character gets there's a design issue.

4e gave every character a chance to do something rad in every fight. Sure, you're gonna use your at-wills a lot. But, fighter could move up next to three mooks and slash them all up and keep them from moving, to give the party a chance to recover. 5e took the "rule of cool" and put it back in the hands of only casters and pseudo-casters, like monks.

I switched to 5e, and I'm having fun. I have loved the products WotC has given us since I started. But, I'm the DM and I can make stuff up and give my players options and make things up and ask them what they want and make things up. Players don't get to just "make things up." I wouldn't want to be a player in 5e, because my character wouldn't be special. I'd just be Ridgar.

[Gizmogidget]

I do want that. In 5e, when you pick your class, you have to pick your path (prestige class) in, like, three levels. In 3.5/4e, you could pick all those at the beginning of the game, or you could make your decision later, based on events in the adventure that affected you or people you've met. Or, you could just decide not to do that.
5e seems like it's giving you a lot of choices, but it doesn't. It gives you one choice in low levels, and it doesn't even give you the choice to make that choice or not.

4e is a game of choices. You are, at every level, making your character unique to what you want. Are all of the options necessarily the most powerful? Of course not. Put they're options. It gives you something to look forward to at every level. 5e has bonuses at every level, but they're not special. They're exactly the same as any other Assassin, Berserker or Bow Ranger. The only time I've heard my players say "I can't wait to level!" is for the stat increase. When your most exciting class feature is something that every other character gets there's a design issue.

4e gave every character a chance to do something rad in every fight. Sure, you're gonna use your at-wills a lot. But, fighter could move up next to three mooks and slash them all up and keep them from moving, to give the party a chance to recover. 5e took the "rule of cool" and put it back in the hands of only casters and pseudo-casters, like monks.

I switched to 5e, and I'm having fun. I have loved the products WotC has given us since I started. But, I'm the DM and I can make stuff up and give my players options and make things up and ask them what they want and make things up. Players don't get to just "make things up." I wouldn't want to be a player in 5e, because my character wouldn't be special. I'd just be Ridgar.

If your players aren't excited about the numerous abilities that they can get over the course of a game, new spell levels, or abilities like Indomitable then I don't really know how to help you. But IMO martial characters can be just as cool or even cooler than casters. I played a champion fighter to 7th level, no feats and it was a blast. Sure a champion fighter is rather simple, but for new players is a great introduction. Or take the rogue for instance, just because the rogue may only be good at 1 thing in combat and that is sneak attack, there is an entire other side of the game where a rogue's abilities to interact with others is key.

[NewDM]

As above, 5e is maybe 20% 4e, 40% 3e, 10% 2e and 30% new stuff. It's back to Vancian casting with spell selection. It's more balanced than 3e. It also plays differently in that to hit and AC don't skyrocket -25 AC is good even at high level so lots of low level creatures are a potential threat. They don't call them that but there are still some daily and encounter powers; instead, they state a power refreshes after a short or long rest. 5e doesn't have the video game healing of 4e but it's much faster than 3e, with full healing after a good night's sleep.

Video game healing? You mean chugging potions or Clerical healing every few rounds? yeah, 5e has that. It even has fighters that recover HP in the middle of combat. It also has Hit Dice on short rests which is the same as 4E healing surges. The only difference is the Fighter is the only class with in combat self healing through Second Wind.


Hoping to avoid coming off as hostile to this sentiment, I wanted to make share an observation I've had with some systems that I think is relevant to the overall discussion.

In a system like 3.X, if you want to do a "trip attack" or the like, the system itself actively punishes you if you don't have special feats that get rid of penalties associated with the action. In my opinion, systems like this don't kill creativity but sometimes put players into smaller boxes and make them believe that they have fewer options than they really do. One of 5E's strengths IMO is that the rules take a step back, and though this doesn't imply there is more creativity at the table, I do think it better enables it to flourish under some conditions.

5E punishes you because dealing damage and killing things fast matter more than anything else in the game. In 4e there was a large hp pool so getting some kind of advantage was better than just dealing 1/8th of their hp in damage. In 5e every time you do something other than deal damage you are extending the fight which might mean your death.


Good one. Oh... were you serious? Because... by this time in the life cycle, 3.5 and 4e had, I think, three or four supplements, with new class features, feats and powers. 5e has... Dragon articles, which are now 50/50 non-WotC material. WotC is not supporting 5e, we're just hoping they do.
(Yeah. I'm bitter. I want to give the company my money, but they seem to only want it in exchange for Magic booster packs, and I'm tired of this gacha game.)

Homebrew is extremely difficult to do in 5e, while remaining balanced. I've created a few PrCs, but it's really rough to keep it all fair. I would not recommend homebrewing if you've not been in the system for a while.

Its difficult in any system to homebrew balanced material, unless you run tons of statistical math problems and virtualizations. Most people just don't understand how hard it is.


If your players aren't excited about the numerous abilities that they can get over the course of a game, new spell levels, or abilities like Indomitable then I don't really know how to help you. But IMO martial characters can be just as cool or even cooler than casters. I played a champion fighter to 7th level, no feats and it was a blast. Sure a champion fighter is rather simple, but for new players is a great introduction. Or take the rogue for instance, just because the rogue may only be good at 1 thing in combat and that is sneak attack, there is an entire other side of the game where a rogue's abilities to interact with others is key.

I'm sorry but as a 4e player, I've tasted what's possible. Going from 4E to 3.75E has shown me how limiting the game can be. In 4E you got all kinds of interesting powers, feats, class features, race features, and skill powers, background replacement powers, etc...etc... that you could swap out at each level or pick a new one and despite what people say they all did something very different, and it was every class.

I recently played a swashbuckler rogue through an adventure. I literally ran up and attacked with 2 rapiers, if I hit I threw down some sneak attack damage and then I ran away. That's what I did in every combat or I went down. It was the most repetitive thing I've ever done in a TTRPG. Outside of combat I made like 3 or 4 skill checks because I put expertise in my rogue skills, and due to bad rolling, I failed most of them (this was around level 5-7). So yeah, 5E is a lot more repetitive than 4E.