Results 31 to 51 of 51
-
2016-06-23, 03:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
-
2016-06-23, 07:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
-
2016-06-25, 01:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
I have played 5e it is my favourite edition of D&D so far.
In terms of the kind of repetition you outline 5e is largely a step in the wrong direction for you. After the first 3 levels players get fewer abilities less often, and the overall model for player abilities is much closer to 3.X than 4e. Martial Characters have somewhat more options but are still mostly just getting a few variants on the basic attack. Casters play similarly to their 3.X counterparts but with fewer spells per day, and since spells don't auto-scale their ability to memorize a wide variety of spells is more limited.
While I enjoy 5e, based on your description of things it probably will just be even worse for you than your current situation. It may be worth a shot just on the basis of "hey it's new" and anything new will be fresh for at least a little while, but I wouldn't hold your breath.Last edited by Mr.Moron; 2016-06-25 at 01:35 AM.
-
2016-06-27, 08:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- Canada
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
Well, I would say here are its pros and cons (having played and thoroughly enjoyed both).
5e pros: Faster combat, less focus on mechanics and more on fun, better balance, no 'bad' options, a bit more old school (more like 3.5 than 4e), no dependency on magic items.
5e cons: New system, so a bit of a lack of options, most martials don't have super interesting combat options, almost everyone can use magic, does not support super high powered play.
4e pros: Every class is interesting to play, tons of options, high power play, more magic items (if you like that thing), races gain racial powers.
4e cons: Very slow, combat feels more like a turn-based video game than an rpg, more complex mechanics, it is possible to have a 'bad' character, not the best balance, nearly impossible for your character to die.
I would say, try out the 5e basic rules, located here for free. If you enjoy your game, buy the PHB and MM, and the DMG if you can spare the money. Also, why don't you check out peoples opinions on why they like 5e in the 5e section?
However, if you enjoyed 3.5 more than 4e, you will probably like 5e. Otherwise, you may still like it, but it would be best if you tried it first.
-
2016-07-17, 12:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2014
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
I'm a long-time 4e DM and have been playing in a 5e campaign. If anything, 5e is more limited in terms of the powers and strategies available. What it gets in return is speed -- there are many fewer options and the game speeds up a great deal. But it is a much less tactical game than 4e.
-
2016-07-17, 12:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2014
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
Good list. I would add:
5e pros: Requires less talent to play effectively, which broadens the pool of players who will enjoy it.
5e cons: Significant racism built into the stat bonuses (e.g., half-orcs will find many classes a difficult fit), and not enough races generally. Very poor survivability of low level characters compared to 4e, which makes it harder to run a story-oriented campaign. (Harder to tell a story where the players are special when they might drop dead tomorrow.)
4e pros: Extraordinarily well-balanced.
4e cons: Requires some tactical talent on the part of the players to really get the most out of the system. Mechanically, all classes are somewhat similar.Last edited by BobTheOrc; 2016-07-17 at 12:32 AM.
-
2016-07-17, 02:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
5E is great if you're a veteran of AD&D but you want a version of AD&D that is actually mechanically well-designed instead of a Gygaxian mess of contradictions, confusion, and sloppy, last-minute design. It basically takes what 3.xE did to try and underpin the game with some sort of game design logic and then simplifies that (and I mean "simplifies" in a good way).
And it's perfect if you just want to play D&D.
4E is great if you think D&D should be cinematic and that the mechanics should reflect that. It's great if you want orcs and hobgoblins - to use two examples - to actually feel different in play even if they are ostensibly the same level and role. It's also great if you want things to be relatively balanced and for the game not to simply devolve past a certain point into a game of "rocket tag". 4E is also for those of us who saw the awesome potential of 3.xE but realised that more work was needed to really make the game sing. :)
For me, though, 4E is the version of D&D I use when I think there are big stories to be told and I want big heroes to be able to tell those stories. Because it's so mechanically robust (and balanced), as the DM I can focus on the story-related issues knowing that the mechanics, by and large, take care of themselves.
IMO. YMMV.Cheers
Scrivener of Doom
-
2016-07-17, 02:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
-
2016-08-30, 07:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
I started with AD&D and have moved to each edition as they came out, largely because my group complains if I stick with older editions.
4E is my favorite edition as a player, because combat is finally both tactical and fun instead of being over instantly as in every other edition except 5. Pretty much every edition up until 4 combat was decided by who went first, and especially whose wizard went first with BFC.
As a DM 3.5 is my favorite edition because I can build the whole universe within the rules of the game, having rules that are the same between the economy, combat and every day interaction is nice for setting development but too complex to matter for players.
5E cuts the difference between the two approaches pretty well on the player side, but cleaves to the 4E approach on the DM side which annoys me as I am a DM first and player second.
-
2016-08-30, 09:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Location
- Shameland (4e Forums)
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
I actually have some issue with this. The only way to get better at a skill in 3.X is to level up, which means that anyone that's good at any task is going to have significantly better combat stats than another person. Consider the real world: Henry Kissinger was an obscenely good diplomat (though I doubt anyone would argue that he was particularly charismatic individual; in game terms, pretty much his entire Diplomacy bonus would come from skill points) which means that he would need to be, at a minimum, a level 4-5 aristocrat (don't really think he'd qualify as a commoner); a level 4-5 aristocrat would be able to wipe the floor with a level 1 warrior, but do you really think Henry Kissinger would be able to put up any kind of real fight against a soldier just out of bootcamp (warrior 1)?
4e does away with that and explicitly states that the progression rules (in fact, pretty much *all* of the rules with the exception of the combat stat guidelines and skill DCs based on level of challenge) are purely for players. You can have an NPC that's a level 1 combatant but has an obscenely high Diplomacy because you can just give them whatever stats are needed for the narrative; you don't even need to create a creature entry for them because you can just note that it's a level 1 minion (choose any one) with a +30 diplomacy check.
As much as people say that 3.X is awesome for building worlds and economies and whatnot because the rules apply to everyone, I have never been able to see how they can possibly fathom that. The fact that 3.X rules are supposed to govern the entire universe means that *no* universe that you create is going to make sense because you're trying to fit adventurers and common people into the exact same mold which makes no sense whatsoever. People don't improve universally (e.g. when a wizard learns a new spell by increasing their level, they also become more resilient, more reactive, and more knowledgeable/capable about stuff completely unrelated to magic) like adventurers do (which makes sense for players; you want adventurers to be generalists so that they're able to do stuff in whatever situation you put them in), nor does more than a tiny fraction of the populous have the limitless potential required to reach obscenely high levels (otherwise, you'd end up with militaries where the seasoned professional soldiers are so high level that conscripted troops would be totally irrelevant; in reality, random people would level up really slowly, getting maybe a level or so per decade and have specific level caps that they just can't overcome), nor do normal people gain power obscenely quickly just by fighting stuff (if wizardry is like science, you would learn more in a lab/library than you would from fighting a dragon).
I'm not saying that you can't enjoy 3.X, but I just *really* don't see how you can say that 3.X makes more sensible worlds than 4e does or is better for GMing.
I've actually told new GMs that 4e is the *best* edition from a GM perspective because the math is so beautifully elegant and there are no rules for the irrelevant stuff (or how you should build your world). There is *nothing* like the MM3 on a business card for 3.X (or any other edition afaik). Also, CR is the weirdest and least specific system for adjudicating encounter difficulty that I have ever seen. Creating new stuff in 3.X involves almost as much guesswork and experimentation as it does actual creativity; creating new stuff in 4e takes about 30 seconds from idea to completion. I've seen 3.X GMs simply give up creating new things completely and only use published materials because it's so abstract. I've taught someone how to build a 4e monster with a single link and 30 seconds of explanation.
-
2016-08-31, 04:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2016-08-31, 10:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Location
- Charlotte, USA
- Gender
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
I agree with everything you've said, but this in particular. I despise CR, and forcing everyone to follow the same rules, regardless of Monster/PC/villager. When everyone builds around the same rules, the things that let a monster solo a party, are also open to the party. Which is just a terrible recipe for power-creep.
OP, my thoughts, don't, not if you enjoyed 4E. The player durability, casters not growing OP, non-casters having options, everyone is both combat & noncombat ready, the things that I love about 4E, you're not going to find them in 5e. But if you think Pathfinder is awesome but has too much power creep, give 5e a try.
-
2016-09-01, 08:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
I ran a few sessions of 5E about two years ago but have just played my first session in the past week. (This was also my first non-"one off" session for 32 years.)
I was playing a cleric and a sorcerer, the latter because the actual player wasn't available and wanted her character to be played. (There's some overarching plot involving the original characters. My cleric is not part of that and is joining at level 6.)
What I noticed was the difficulty in selecting spells because nothing is laid out logically. Even Gygax got this right: He made sure the first PHB segregated spells by level and class so that, when you are looking for spells to prepare/memorise of a certain level, they were all in one place. And then there is the issue of looking up spells in combat and trying to parse the really imprecise language. I think half the spell mechanical descriptions could have been halved in size if some effort had been made to standardise the language. That would have left space to then describe what these spells look like in terms of visual and other sense-based effects.
Of course, the DM has exactly the same problem when it comes to creating and/or running NPCs and monsters.
It was still D&D. still fun to play (especially as it had been decades since I had done anything more than two sessions of 4E for LFR at a convention), and I will continue because the DM is great, but it really is like playing AD&D again albeit with better maths and combat rules that make sense.
As we were playing, the other player (also with two characters) said to me sotto voce, "It really is like playing Basic D&D again", as he had also been playing in my 4E campaign and his fighter types were so very simple to play with very few tactical options.
I'm also not sure how much of whatever negative thoughts I hold towards it were shaped by the DM's house rule being that a short rest is overnight and a long rest is a full week of doing nothing. The other characters are all fighter-types and love the "realism" (cough, cough); with two spellcasters, I was spamming cantrips because I simply didn't have enough slots to last through the adventure. (Yeah, that's one of those house rules created without thinking through the consequences....)Cheers
Scrivener of Doom
-
2016-09-15, 04:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- here
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
4e just clicked for me from the first time I ever tried it, to the point that by the end of the session the rest of the players were marveling at how dangerous I was in combat at level 1. I guess I have a tactical mindset.
To echo others, I really like the balance in 4e; it's not a game where the rest of the party just sits around while the caster handles everything. The one thing that bothers me about 4e is, as others have mentioned, a combat encounter that lasts 5 rounds takes a couple hours to run. My group plays for 6-7 hours, and in that time we typically get through 2 encounters.
I've played a session of 5e, and at level 1 it seemed very similar to 3.X. The thing I liked most was the change to advantage. If I ever DM a 4e game, I'm going to houserule a second die instead of a +2 bonus.
The thing is, like any other RPG most of the actual fun (for me, tastes may vary) comes from the role-playing. As long as the system allows me to do that with some measure of verisimilitude, I'm good.
-
2016-09-19, 01:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Meridianville AL
- Gender
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
Um, I'm fairly sure that's an explicit variant in the 5th edition DMG. 5E is DESIGNED around 6-9 OR MORE encounters per long rest. Spellcasters are SUPPOSED to be spamming cantrips for most combat rounds, because you're supposed to be fighting many, many battles per long rest, and 2+ per short rest even.
-
2016-09-20, 09:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
I run a table with 6 PCs and most of our combats last about 30-45 minutes.
What I have noticed is that our combats have sped up a lot since I went to my new way of running through initiative. I print out the monster stat blocks two to an A4 page and also have PC sheets of the same size. I write the initiative number on the top right hand corner of each sheet and then shuffle them into initiative order. I use the stat block pages to record damage taken and conditions for each monster in pencil (so I can erase them and use them again) and I have sections on the PC sheets to remind me about their ongoing effects etc....
That small change was enough to shave another 15-30 minutes off each combat.
Well, it's a variant that didn't suit the adventure.
Anyway, we're starting another 5E campaign and going back to the normal rest mechanic.Cheers
Scrivener of Doom
-
2016-09-20, 09:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
Not a fan of 5e, but some problems go away if you change the rest mechanic to the following:
One fight? Short rest = hour.
Two fights? Short rest = 5 minutes
Three fights? Short rest = minute
Four fights? Automatic
Basically, as you fight more and more fights, the amount you need to rest to recharge short-rest options goes down. You don't get more efficient taking a food break every hour, but lunch will make you work faster after you've done a lot...
-
2016-09-20, 07:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
Cheers
Scrivener of Doom
-
2016-09-20, 10:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
Yeah, I can't play 5e unless it is in a really narrow level range of about 5th-7th. And even then, I'm wondering why I'm doing it.
I went to a 2nd convention to give AL a really good try and by the end, I decided to eat a slot and go home rather than play another level 1-4 AL mod. But I suspect I'm the gamer that they don't know what to do with - the person who started in AD&D and loves 4e because of how 4e approaches the problems of AD&D.
-
2016-09-21, 10:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
-
2016-10-09, 07:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Played 4e, considering going to 5e. Should I?
Sounds like your 4e DM isn't playing his encounters correctly. 4e is a tactical game. And nothing is worse in 4e then having a dm that just plays all his monsters like brutes. Like with an ice warrior mauler, they are supposed to immobilize with their minor attack option then shift away leaving the character helpless and isolated. And thats fun, its a chellenge to overcome. But if the DM has the ice warrior mauler just "okay defenders, attack nearest, skirmishers, attack nearest, blah nlah blah" then those are going to be boring, repetitive and easy encounters. Which is what it sounds like you are facing.