I played 4th edition for the first time - here are my thoughts.

[Kurald Galain]

Ah, so I was looking at a table from the playtest and they did fix that. Well, that's certainly better than HOFK's random treasure system

[OldSalt]

As a long time gamer (good lord, since 1979, I think) and playtester here's my $0.02 on 4e:

Ack, at the risk of making this thread sound like the Four Yorkshire Men sketch, I started back in 77 buying a boxed set of OD&D from a Model Railway Exhibition in London when I was a nipper. Hobbits were still hobbits, rather than halflings, in that set.

D&D4 does have problems but is playable. You just have to accept:

1. The game enshrines the repeative nature of D&D by the repeat use powers.
2. Too complicated for most reasonably intelligent gamers to create a character by themselves, first off.
3. Too easy for people to create ineffective characters that can't hit their enemies in an attempt to be well-rounded.
4. It's a board game.

The PHB was a rather disastrous start, which generally only worked if you realised that a 20 Strength and a weapon with a proficiency bonus of 3 was pretty much essential.

For me the one-line summary was if pre-4th ed D&D was expressive ballet, D&D4 was line dancing with just five moves, one of which you can use once in a game day.

However this doesn't stop people building, and enjoying, complex hybrid D&D4 character designs that actually work nor people getting around a table for a game.

[Sol]

I....don't accept your assertions.

1. The game enshrines the repeative nature of D&D by the repeat use powers.

In what way are 4e powers more repetitive than any older edition's "I attack with my axe"?

Certainly, the martial characters being balanced with the magic users leads them to actually do so more often, but unless they're a ranger or pick one of the essentials classes, at-wills basically don't get used once you have a full suite of encounter powers, which happens by level 7.

3.5 literally had monk builds that made a dozen fist attacks per turn. I'm not saying that that's not cool or interesting in its own way -- but I'm absolutely calling BS on it being less repetitive than AEDU options.

2. Too complicated for most reasonably intelligent gamers to create a character by themselves, first off.

I agree with this one -- other than the existence of the CBuilder, online or offline. But I have that issue with many systems. Parsing the source books and trying to figure out how the game works before you've actually played it is hard, particularly when so many of the fundamentals of the mechanics are different than what you're used to.

The CBuilder completely solves this issue, though it doesn't help with your item number 3.

3. Too easy for people to create ineffective characters that can't hit their enemies in an attempt to be well-rounded.

This is a fair criticism, but it's also self-solving, and I don't find it to be at all unique to 4e.

Almost everyone builds a useless character or two as their first character in almost any system, unless they have a veteran helping them. This is largely because, with no prior experience in actual play, they are unable to evaluate the relative weight of disparate options.

Some systems favor being well-rounded over being specialized. Others, like 4e, penalize not being specialized more than you might expect, if you're unaware of the math assumptions underlying monster stats.

4. It's a board game.

4e combat is a board game, sure. So? People have been using miniatures and grid maps at some tables for decades. 4e made that less optional -- again, for combat -- but it's hardly new or revolutionary. And anyone who uses a grid or turn order for non-combat roleplaying scenarios is adding a tremendous about of unnecessary overhead to their table, which is not a fault of the system.

[Beoric]

In what way are 4e powers more repetitive than any older edition's "I attack with my axe"?

He didn't say it was more repetitive. He said all editions of DnD are repetitive. 4e is less repetitive for melee character and more repetitive for casters.

[Sol]

He didn't say it was more repetitive. He said all editions of DnD are repetitive. 4e is less repetitive for melee character and more repetitive for casters.

Not sure I buy even that. I mean, I understand that it's a compelling thing to say, but I don't think holds up to examination.

Shared spell lists lead, over time, to repetitiveness because there's less of a difference between "sorcerer spells" and "wizard spells" (or "druid spells" and "cleric spells")..or sometimes between all four. Nevermind bards and rangers and paladins.

The ability to swap between a much larger spell list each day doesn't necessarily mean that there's a compelling reason to swap much. Most players I know ended up with a fairly set spell list that they went with every day unless they had advance knowledge of something specific that wasn't usually on their standard list that would be useful in the upcoming adventure.

Sure, that element is largely missing in 4e, but it can be brought back via spellbook feats, the mage class, and other feats that allow for swapping powers on the fly, if you really miss it. And retraining is very easy in 4e.

But IME most casters basically decided which spell they liked best and kept well stocked on it, with other stuff for utilities in slots it didn't fit nicely in.

So...is this back to the same argument of, because one well-placed fireball doesn't instantly end a 4e combat, the wizard ends up casting the same encounter 3 encounter powers 3x a day, and that's somehow supposed to be more boringly repetitive than ending 3 combats with 3 uses of Meteor Swarm?

If the argument is just that "all editions of DND have repetitive aspects," then I agree, but am confused why it would be on his list.

[Beoric]

The PHB was a rather disastrous start, which generally only worked if you realised that a 20 Strength and a weapon with a proficiency bonus of 3 was pretty much essential.

Well, now, hang on, this is more an issue with DM choices in encounter design. Consider that, in 1e a first level fighter with a 16 strength and wielding an axe would hit a 1HD orc with a natural 14. Clerics and thieves would need a 15. In 4e, a first level fighter with a 16 strength and wielding an axe would hit most first level monsters with a natural 9 (11 if it is a soldier); he could hit a level 4 monster with a natural 12.

The reason it feels like you need a 20 in your primary stat is that published adventures build most encounters at a significantly higher level than the level of the PCs. Compare that with Appendix C of the 1e DMG, where 80% of dungeon encounters were with monsters at or below the dungeon's level.

You don't have to make every encounter hard; DnD is primarily a game of resource management and attrition anyway. And PCs can do what they used to do when an encounter was too tough - run away.

[Beoric]

Shared spell lists lead, over time, to repetitiveness because there's less of a difference between "sorcerer spells" and "wizard spells" (or "druid spells" and "cleric spells")..or sometimes between all four. Nevermind bards and rangers and paladins.

There were no shared spell lists in 1e. Bards, rangers and paladins don't count, because the spells they got were obsolete by the time they had access to them (and bards were difficult to qualify for and took forever to actually become bards; nobody I knew ever played one).

I will agree that there was some spamming of favourite spells, but only at higher levels when you had the slots available, and there was significant incentive to carry a variety of utility spells to cover various contingencies (comprehend languages, read magic, and light, and those are just first level spells). 1e had no 0 level spells, so there were fewer spell slots available than with 3e.

Of course, at low level it got repetitive, because after your first level MU blew his one and only sleep spell, the routine became "I throw my dagger," "You miss".

[Sol]

There were no shared spell lists in 1e. Bards, rangers and paladins don't count, because the spells they got were obsolete by the time they had access to them (and bards were difficult to qualify for and took forever to actually become bards; nobody I knew ever played one).

I will agree that there was some spamming of favourite spells, but only at higher levels when you had the slots available, and there was significant incentive to carry a variety of utility spells to cover various contingencies (comprehend languages, read magic, and light, and those are just first level spells). 1e had no 0 level spells, so there were fewer spell slots available than with 3e.

Of course, at low level it got repetitive, because after your first level MU blew his one and only sleep spell, the routine became "I throw my dagger," "You miss".

I don't disagree with any of this.

All of these are things I find absolutely awful about 1/2/3e, and are some of the reasons I have no interest in playing them ever again.

[MwaO]

Well, now, hang on, this is more an issue with DM choices in encounter design. Consider that, in 1e a first level fighter with a 16 strength and wielding an axe would hit a 1HD orc with a natural 14. Clerics and thieves would need a 15. In 4e, a first level fighter with a 16 strength and wielding an axe would hit most first level monsters with a natural 9 (11 if it is a soldier); he could hit a level 4 monster with a natural 12.

The reason it feels like you need a 20 in your primary stat is that published adventures build most encounters at a significantly higher level than the level of the PCs. Compare that with Appendix C of the 1e DMG, where 80% of dungeon encounters were with monsters at or below the dungeon's level.

You don't even need it for them. My first four PCs in Living Forgotten Realms:
Half-Elf Paladin with an 18 Cha, think a 14 Str
Eladrin Fighter with a +2 prof weapon and 16 Str.
Half-Elf Fighter with a 14 Str and +3 prof weapon. Who never increased Str from levels 1-10.
Playtest Tiefling Bard who didn't get any magic items until maybe 8th level and had an 18 Cha. And yes, he was perfectly set up for Resourceful Magician and Tiefling got all that great support. Didn't know it at the time, though :)

The larger issue is why people take a 20 primary stat and why some people take a 16 primary stat and +2 prof weapon. They're both fine choices - a -3 to hit isn't the end of the world, particularly if something useful happens as an outcome. Where things go wrong is the person who has a -3 to hit is also the same person who doesn't make sure that they have a top-tier weapon choice or invest in expertise feats or gaining CA, etc...when that -3 becomes a -5 in comparison, then there's a problem.

[Beoric]

Yeah, but don't forget the role that tactical acumen plays, and not everybody has it when they start out. It makes a big difference, and starter adventures like Keep on the Shadowfell (which throws a level 6 encounter at a level 1 party in the third encounter of the adventure) train players to go for the low hanging fruit of maximizing attack bonus.

[Kurald Galain]

The reason it feels like you need a 20 in your primary stat is that published adventures build most encounters at a significantly higher level than the level of the PCs.

Not exactly. The reason it feels like you need a 20 in your primary stat is because how little your other stats will do for you. Basically you need three decent stats to get your defenses up, and most characters will get zero or near-zero benefit from the other three, so you might as well put those points in your primary. Except if you roll for stats, of course, but 4E's default is point buy.

So it's about opportunity cost. The opportunity cost for boosting your primary is very, very low; and therefore most players boost their primary.

[OldSalt]

He didn't say it was more repetitive. He said all editions of DnD are repetitive. 4e is less repetitive for melee character and more repetitive for casters.

Correct.

Although, with a bit of lateral thinking, you could usually reconfigure the Cleric spell casting list, for example, to go beyond healing and combat.

D&D often had combat spells that had astoundingly practical uses out of combat. Wall of Stone could often be used to create sturdy walls for houses, for example.

They did tend to depend on a world not based around combat encounters though.

[MwaO]

Not exactly. The reason it feels like you need a 20 in your primary stat is because how little your other stats will do for you. Basically you need three decent stats to get your defenses up, and most characters will get zero or near-zero benefit from the other three, so you might as well put those points in your primary.

Being good at hitting is a straightforward way to start optimizing. But that doesn't actually justify a 20 unless you're a Dex or Int-based class. And even then, for the Int-based classes except Wizard, it can be shaky.

A real hidden cost is that the 20 stat PC is going to lose more init-rolls than the 18 stat PC. It really adds up. Everyone remembers the time that they just missed, because it almost always gets called out. Very few people notice how they just barely lost initiative and therefore got caught in an area attack. Or just barely won initiative and made a monster unable to do what they wanted to do.

And when you toss feat access in, such as Battle Awareness, etc...and just how powerful Human is both because of Heroic Effort & the extra feat in a game with 2 must-have feats by 11th level? Human doesn't get that extra +2 for a secondary stat, making a 15 in a secondary with 13 in a tertiary a complicated thing to do...

[Yakk]

Higher level foes do make attack bonuses worth more.

If you are fighting foes you would hit half the time, adding +1 to hit increases your damage output by almost 10% (10%, ignoring crits).

If you are fighting foes you hit 3/4 of the time, adding +1 to hit increases your damage output (ignoring crits) by 6.7%.

If you are fighting foes you hit 1/4 of the time, adding +1 to hit increases your damage output by 20% (ignoring crits).

If you are fighting foes you hit 1/10 of the time, adding +1 to hit increases your damage output by 50% (ignoring crits).

Higher level foes in 4e are harder to hit by default. So fighting higher level foes inflates the benefit of to-hit bonuses compared to fighting even-level foes.

It is true that if there was a large benefit to adding a +1 to a lower stat this would overwealm the 7%-30% damage output boost from a +1 on your primary stat. But that amount of boost is a pretty large one for a "pick" in 4e.

At level 30, you have gained about 30 "picks" to customize your character (feats, items, paragon paths, etc). Few of them boost your character's effectiveness by 10%-20%

Someone who "picked" 30 things, each of which made the character 10% better than another person's picks, would by 17 times more powerful than the other character. That is the realm of serious cheese builds, not typical optimization.

The choice of having a 20 instead of an 18, or an 18 instead of a 16, is one with a large and long-term effect on the character's ability to get things done in 4e, because most powers and abilities require hitting to do the effect you want, compared to other decisions you make when making a 4e character. Not just compared to having a 10 vs 12 in your "unimportant stats"; compared to your power choices, your feat choices, etc.

There are things that rival it; class, race, paragon path, sub-build, attack tool, which multiclass choice, epic destiny can all have as large or larger an effect. You can sometimes find a key feat or two and build a castle out of it as well.

But a good pick in 4e is more like a feat that is 3% to 5% more effective than the alternatives. Make post-level-1 picks that average 3% better than your friend, and your character ends up about 2.5x as effective by level 30. That is the difference between someone who drops an even level foe in 5 rounds, to one that does it in 2. Night and day.

[MwaO]

Higher level foes do make attack bonuses worth more.

If you are fighting foes you would hit half the time, adding +1 to hit increases your damage output by almost 10% (10%, ignoring crits).

At level 30, you have gained about 30 "picks" to customize your character (feats, items, paragon paths, etc). Few of them boost your character's effectiveness by 10%-20%

+10% DPR per swing at a big sacrifice in overall stats <> +10% effectiveness. You're basically trading everything for an extra hit every 2-3 combats - assuming somewhere between 7-10 attack rolls per combat.

There are ways to get that extra hit back.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

Well, yes. It is worth remembering that when 4E was first released, it was with flawed SC math (which was changed in the first errata), flawed attack math (fixed one year later with expertise feats), flawed monster math (fixed two years later in the MM3), lack of certain popular classes (added in the PHB2), and with no character builder. Many of the things we take for granted now just didn't exist at release time.

If you built your own monsters following the advice in the DMG then the early monster maths (and monster design) wasn't that bad. The problem was that the Monster Manual was a proverbial dog's breakfast that had stat blocks built on at least three different versions of the monster design rules and no developer or editor ever tidied them up. However, that was also pmost likely a casualty of the whole edition being released six months ahead of schedule.

Err? 5e has had good to great adventures, but non-proficient saving throws, insane complexity casters, conflicting magic item math and CR chart, and lack of interesting consistent weapon-using/non-caster PCs who control their capabilities?

5e has a lot of weak spots - there's a reason why they spent 2 years on a marketing campaign to convince people that math wasn't particularly important.

Yeah, I look at 5E - both from having played it and read it - and all I see is that, once the novelty wears off, it's just going to be a better-written AD&D with many of the same problems plus the new ones you mentioned. And, in each instance, I look at 4E and see the solution.

I....don't accept your assertions. (snip)

Agreed.

[OldSalt]

Yeah, I look at 5E - both from having played it and read it - and all I see is that, once the novelty wears off, it's just going to be a better-written AD&D with many of the same problems plus the new ones you mentioned. And, in each instance, I look at 4E and see the solution.

I don't rate D&D5 at all, for what it is worth.

It looks like an overly complex attempt to regain the D&D player market share back from Pathfinder, without satisfying the existing D&D4 players.

[OldSalt]

I....don't accept your assertions.

You don't have to accept them, I'm seeking to explain rather than convert and I'm pleased that you have grasped some of them.

As for boardgame aspect, have you ever considered how illogical push, pull and slide can be in a combat?

I just accept that D&D4 is a boardgame and that these rules are boardgame rules that don't need to be rationalised.

[oxybe]

Are... are you telling me you've never seen any sort of combat where people aren't trying to reposition the other fighter in a more disadvantageous position? That your idea of a fight is just two people standing face to face clubbing each other with weapons?

[OldSalt]

Are... are you telling me you've never seen any sort of combat where people aren't trying to reposition the other fighter in a more disadvantageous position? That your idea of a fight is just two people standing face to face clubbing each other with weapons?

It's in fact the mobile nature of combat that makes me rankle at this boardgame element.

As as early as The Fantasy Trip, Steve Jackson's GURPS precursor, there was a forceback event of an opponent by a heavy blow but this movement was magical.

In military/naval traditions people were pushed, or forced, down "gauntlets" where lines of men either side got a blow, a situation close to attacks of opportunity.

However forced movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, making it more of a boardgame thing rather than simulationist.

[Tiadoppler]

It's in fact the mobile nature of combat that makes me rankle at this boardgame element.

As as early as The Fantasy Trip, Steve Jackson's GURPS precursor, there was a forceback event of an opponent by a heavy blow but this movement was magical.

In military/naval traditions people were pushed, or forced, down "gauntlets" where lines of men either side got a blow, a situation close to attacks of opportunity.

However forced movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, making it more of a boardgame thing rather than simulationist.

Fourth Edition was designed to be a better balanced game than previous editions. For the most part, they succeeded, but that did take away some of the simulationist aspects. Logically, forced movement should provoke opportunity attacks (in some situations), but that would make the forced movement effect too powerful for low-level, common attacks.

Imagine a basic attack with a slide effect that lets the entire party make melee basic attacks on the target. Overpowered in the PCs' hands, almost a one-hit-kill in the DM's hands. Game balance had to come before verisimilitude.

[OldSalt]

Imagine a basic attack with a slide effect that lets the entire party make melee basic attacks on the target. Overpowered in the PCs' hands, almost a one-hit-kill in the DM's hands. Game balance had to come before verisimilitude.

However this is the best explaination I can provide of why D&D4 is like a boardgame, as this ruling makes sense in such a context.

I would have prefered game mechanics that don't fall down these holes, probably by removing these "magical" forced movements or replacing them with a better thought through, more realistic system.

But D&D4 is D&D4 and playable in its own right.

[Yakk]

+10% DPR per swing at a big sacrifice in overall stats <> +10% effectiveness. You're basically trading everything for an extra hit every 2-3 combats - assuming somewhere between 7-10 attack rolls per combat.

There are ways to get that extra hit back.

That is discussing costs, not benefits. The benefit is close to 5% to 30%, which is large to ridiculously huge at the scale of 4e player picks.

The fact that the cost is low is covered elsewhere. With few exceptions, losing +1 off 2 non attack stats isn't that bad. 1 point of AC (at worst), 2 total off some NAD, 2 HP, a healing surge, and reduced riders on some powers. Lots of stuff, but usually small in impact.

Honestly, the hard part is often feat access.

Getting "that hit back"; with very few exceptions, is something someone with the +1 to hit could also do.

It isn't "your character becomes unusable", but among optimization picks a 4e character gets, it is in the top 25% in impact.

Picks that nake you 10% better st something, compounded 30 times, result in a character that is 18 times better at the task. Even 3% better per pick makes you 2.5x better. Dealing 2.5 times as much damage, or 2.5x as much healing or control or tanking, will make the other character seem incompetent at the task. This is magnified when the task is a proactive and linear not reactive and sublinear one, because you get to steal spotlight almost at will.

[Tiadoppler]

However this is the best explaination I can provide of why D&D4 is like a boardgame, as this ruling makes sense in such a context.

I would have prefered game mechanics that don't fall down these holes, probably by removing these "magical" forced movements or replacing them with a better thought through, more realistic system.

But D&D4 is D&D4 and playable in its own right.

I guess I'm just a little confused. Are you saying "like a boardgame" as a bad thing? A neutral description? A compliment?

4e is like a board game in a negative way: it has specific rules that don't use exactly the same logic as reality (i.e. magic exists, circles are squares, life force is a measurable number, forced movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks)

4e is like a board game in a neutral way: combat takes place on a grid. You move little toys around to show what's going on. You can't ever walk 2.5 feet.

4e is like a board game in a complimentary way: characters are well balanced and follow the same rules. Everyone gets to have fun.




4e is NOT the same as other editions of D&D. It's better in some ways, and worse in others. All games make some concessions to prioritize gameplay over pure simulation of reality. Not everybody likes and dislikes the same things.

Opinions are personal. For me, in my personal opinion, 4e is strictly superior to 3.5, mostly because I like the ability to adhere to a balanced set of rules, no matter what characters are being played. You're right, 4e is very playable as is. If your group wants to houserule things to make certain effects more simulationist, that's great. Have fun!

Your mileage may vary. Some terms and conditions will apply. Consult your doctor before applying D&D4e to your gaming group.

[OldSalt]

I guess I'm just a little confused. Are you saying "like a boardgame" as a bad thing? A neutral description? A compliment?

D&D4 is as D&D4 does. I play it and enjoy it.

People here have asked why other gamers think D&D4 is a boardgame and I've sought to explain this.

[MwaO]

That is discussing costs, not benefits. The benefit is close to 5% to 30%, which is large to ridiculously huge at the scale of 4e player picks.

The fact that the cost is low is covered elsewhere. With few exceptions, losing +1 off 2 non attack stats isn't that bad. 1 point of AC (at worst), 2 total off some NAD, 2 HP, a healing surge, and reduced riders on some powers. Lots of stuff, but usually small in impact.

Hard to measure in impact, because no specific thing seems that important or gets called out. Compared to what happens when you miss by just one. DM goes "Oh, you just missed!" But again, you're not getting 30% benefit anywhere unless your DM's a complete insane idiot. You're getting one extra hit over the course of two combats.

But you'll lose initiatives without really noticing or get stunned/dazed without having Superior Will and lose some actions. Or you won't be one of the three reroll races that get an extra chance at a hit. Or even because you're not human, you'll be behind on feat access and have it even worse than that. Or you won't be able to qualify for Battle Awareness+Cyclone Warrior or Disciple of Divine Wrath(the value of which goes through the roof if you're constantly fighting over leveled opponents...) - if you're a Str-using PC as an example interested in doing multi-attacking.

Something gives somewhere.

[chif-ii]

Not that I haven't been enjoying lurking and reading everyone's reactions...but what are your thoughts on rituals?

I quite like the concept, but like monster HP, PC to-hit bonuses, and V versus A classes, it seems like the designers had a good idea that fell flat, forcing them to clumsily revise the system after-the-fact (often in completely different books that players might not have access to, or might not think to invest in if they don't know about it).

10 minutes is way too long to wait to do something as simple as finding a secret door or determining if someone is lying, especially in the dangerous/time sensitive situations you would want to use those sorts of rituals in.

"Is finding those traps worth 50 gp? No? Throg, start running and make sure you hit every stone on your way down the hall."

"I'm terribly sorry, sir, but quite frankly, I think you're lying. Would you mind giving me and my friends...oh, 10 minutes or so to prepare a rebuttal?"

(This applies whether you're using Discern Lies, which only lasts 5 minutes, or Chorus of Truth, which only works on people who stayed within 25 feet of you while you were obviously chanting and muttering to yourself)

5e's rituals take 10 minutes, yes, but there that extra 10 minutes lets you pay for the spell without expending a spell slot. So if you have the time, you can conserve your resources and cast _detect magic_ as a ritual, but if you're in a situation where the knowledge of what's behind that door is more important than an additional sleep/cure wounds/burning hands spell, you can just cast the spell normally.

Yeah, I look at 5E - both from having played it and read it - and all I see is that, once the novelty wears off, it's just going to be a better-written AD&D with many of the same problems plus the new ones you mentioned. And, in each instance, I look at 4E and see the solution.

5e is the best version of D&D.

Now hang on, don't lynch me.

You don't have to plan your entire day's worth of spellcasting ahead of time, Concentration means that magic users can't pile every single buff spell on the party at once and win in 2 rounds, fighters don't suck as much (mostly due to nerfs to magic), lower-level creatures can be a bigger threat at higher levels if they come in numbers, everyone can heal themselves without divine intervention...

But magicians still outshine martialists, spell slots are still just as complicated (though more versatile), a low-level fighter's most interesting move still tends to be "I hit it again...again!", a giant with 1 hit point is just as effective as a giant with 100, saving throws still exist...

If you liked O/A/2/3/3.x D&D, but found one or two mechanics that bugged you, you'll like 5e. However, if you dislike some (admittedly BS) traditions at the core of Dungeons and Dragons, 5th edition will not be a miracle pill for you.

[Kurald Galain]

Not that I haven't been enjoying lurking and reading everyone's reactions...but what are your thoughts on rituals?

Poorly executed.

Not just because of the casting time, but also because of the stupid restrictions. Generally, their flavor text depicts something cool and useful, and their rules text outlines why the ritual doesn't actually do that. For instance "commune with nature" by its fluff lets you find things outdoors; by its rules, it instead gives you three yes/no questions (which is generally nowhere near sufficient to find anything). Both locate object and detect secret doors have such a silly small area of effect that you might as well search it by hand. The illusion rituals as well as arcane lock are trivially taken down by any enemy that's a credible threat to you (because they get to retry their check every round, and the ritual caster doesn't). And then there's a ritual that lets you move faster overland, but takes eight hours to cast

Of course, they work fine if you ignore their rules text and play them by their fluff description (which many people do). And there's a handful that are required for plot reasons, such as raise dead and portal, and are therefore easy to use.

If you liked O/A/2/3/3.x D&D, but found one or two mechanics that bugged you, you'll like 5e.

What if you found two mechanics that bugged you in 5E?

[ThePurple]

Not that I haven't been enjoying lurking and reading everyone's reactions...but what are your thoughts on rituals?

Personally, I dislike the ritual rules as written. They require a lot of bookkeeping (which I do not enjoy at all) and are generally so hyperspecific that they either allow players to completely circumvent a skill challenge with a comparatively minor expenditure of ritual components (which basically gets translated by players into "residuum" because residuum is the same cost but can be used for all ritual types) or they're useless "loot" that the player just keeps in their ritual book doing nothing.

I've got a house rule that makes rituals way more versatile, balanced, and useful. The Ritual Caster feat allows a PC to "buy" successes on a skill challenge at the cost of a healing surge or level dependent amount of gold (level of the SC, that is). The player just describes the magical effect they're attempting to generate and I'll tell them whether I think it's appropriate for that skill and their level.

5e is the best version of D&D.

A lot of people have noted that 4e doesn't feel like D&D (including a lot of people that like 4e), and many people use this in an insulting manner, which is why many of us react so aggressively to people that say this.

4e is definitely the version of D&D least like the others. It's *also* the most well designed (from a ludological standpoint; there are some people that prefer poorly designed games, like Risk and Monopoly, which is perfectly fine) and codified version of D&D. A lot of people (as you do here) use this difference as the explanation for 4e being "bad" since it deviates from the norms set by the previous editions (I heard this same reaction when 3.X came out compared to Classic and AD&D and now 3.X is what people seem to measure everything else against, which just confirms to me that the complaints are more driven by hating change rather than actual rational comparison).

A minority of people (those of us that like 4e) recognize that just because a game is different from its predecessors doesn't make it bad, especially when it's different because it's taken to slaughtering sacred cows and making them into delicious steaks. One of the rallying cries that I've seen is "If 4e isn't D&D, maybe I shouldn't be playing D&D".

In my opinion, 4e is still D&D, it's the *best* edition of D&D (but still not perfect), and it's the best specifically *because* it's the least like the other editions which were afraid to make all of the changes that 4e made because they were beholden to 3.X's sacred cows. If your measurement of quality is "how much does it adhere to what the other editions did", you're conflating quality with duplication, which is a bad thing.

Comically enough, I've had chats with quite a few people that are relatively high in the vidya game industry and, when the topic of D&D editions came up, stating that I prefer 4e instead of 3.PF or 5e was seen as evidence that I would be a good systems designer because they all see 4e as the "better designed system, even if it's not precisely D&D" (they also laugh at 4e being seen by many people as a "failed" game because it wasn't as profitable or popular even though it's a better designed game, since, in both PnP and video games, "good" is only loosely correlated with "profitable/popular").

[Dimers]

Not that I haven't been enjoying lurking and reading everyone's reactions...but what are your thoughts on rituals?

Great idea, junk execution. Houserules necessary -- but the concept of a ritual is great and should be saved. (At least assuming a high-magic world, as one does with 4e). I like 3rd-ed's "invocations" from UA for the same reason. Less satisfied with 5e's ritual tags, because in most cases you have to have caster class levels to get them and I like the populist approach better. I do like the bit where you can cast quickly from a slot or slowly for free, though.

I offer as part of loot ritual supplies that can only be used for certain rituals, and I make sure my players have plentiful opportunity to learn new rituals in flavorful ways.

10 minutes is way too long to wait to do something as simple as finding a secret door or determining if someone is lying, especially in the dangerous/time sensitive situations you would want to use those sorts of rituals in.

Yah. Have you perchance looked at Surrealistik's "Essential Houserules"? There's a lot of interesting ideas under that #1 spoiler tag, including some that speed up casting.

5e is the best version of D&D. Now hang on, don't lynch me.

I find 5e notably better balanced than 4e, very good at letting everyone contribute meaningfully ... and almost entirely lacking in verve. If my character can't be or become truly masterful at something, I constantly wonder in the back of my brain, "Why doesn't she just chuck this adventuring nonsense and get a real job?" I have to design characters who don't mind the fact that their contribution is, and will always be, heavily dependent on the d20.

But yeah, I can agree that 5e is the best D&D in at least one sense. Probably more.